now it bounced back to 33. he wouldn't confirm how much extra business he would get by going into the pharmaceutical business and taking over some of china's supply to us. what a story. my time's up. but neil, it is yours now. neil: remember when it was a dying photography giant. it missed the digital age. now it has a connection with the drugs and all the rest? it is off to the races. stuart: extraordinary story. neil: you and i are probably only ones that remember that old kodak. thank you my friend. >> neil, i was going to tell you asked my grandchildren what do you know about kodak? never heard of it. never heard of it. neil: isn't that wild. isn't that wild? paul mccartney was, beatles what is that? okay. game over. stuart: you got it. neil: feel like lawrence welk popping bubbles. thank you my friend, we have a

lot going on as stuart did tell you that whole hearing where the tech giants will gather virtually at least. it is parked back maybe half an hour. i was doing back of the napkin guesstimating on their wealth. that is on, i think is worth about $180 billion. our charlie brady follows this thing would know to the penny. i think it is roughly about that. mark zuckerberg facebook, close to $90 billion, close to $2 billion, tim cook of apple, thanks to appreciation of that stock, he is at around $2 billion. so let's say you were to add all of this. these are numbers. i added it all up. that is $272 billion collectively. these are among the richest men on the planet, particularly when it comes to bezos and

zuckerberg. but putting companies combined market cap at north of $5 trillion. if you were to add microsoft to that bunch, microsoft will not be part of this hearing. they represent the five most valuable companies in the world. isn't that amazing? you're welcome america. we have this delay. we have time. what is really all about, whether all the guys gotten too big for their britches, whether they have invaded other companies turf and now sort of taken it to their own, facebook, social media world. amazon that is sort of wiped out, you know the rap. too many businesses to count, even though jeff bezos in a statement that was released earlier. we're just a fraction of the overall retail environment, even though when it comes toe e-commerce, they represent about 40% of that environment.

but republicans and democrats are united saying you know what? we had it with you. republicans say the content is slighted against conservatives. democrats say these guys might have been all the foreign election interference stuff, and did diddly squat to stop that. when you have fair and balanced rage like that goes after all the key players, you're going to get fireworks here. this is the subcommittee of the house judiciary committee. you might recall yesterday was the house judiciary committee itself run by jerry nadler, that went after bill barr, attorney general of the united states. i don't know if we expect quite the same fireworks here. these gentlemen will not be there in person. many members of the subcommittee panel will be asking questions virtually as well. but you know, a lot is at stake here. i want to go to hillary vaughn. she was nicely outlining what is at stake today. when it does start, hillary, it will be a long day, isn't it?

reporter: it is neil. in is really the most high-profile tech hearing that congress has seen. it is almost fitting happening virtually. all four ceos appearing before congress the first time ever, live streaming into the hearing. it is amazon's jeff bezos the very first time in confront of congress facing lawmaker questions. facebook mark zuckerberg and tim cook and sundar pichai will face lawmaker questions over anti-trust concerns. also a whole lot more. there are going to be a lot of questions from republicans on the committee. they have questions about censorship and how republicans and their content is censored on their sites. there is also going stock questions directed at apple for their presence in china. questions about whether or not they utilize slave labor, even downstream to make some components that go into their devices. we're also going to hear from the ceo's and some of the

founders themselves. one interesting theme here, amazon's jeff bezos is going to make the case that the pandemic actually made his competitors stronger. target, walmart, he says, have grown their on line presence as consumer behavior shifts to things like curbside pickup. that made it more competitive for them. we'll also hearing from google's sundar pichai, through the pandemic they have been key to helping main street stay online offering free services like gmail, like google maps. these are all going to be topics brought up. the hearing is delayed. we're expected half an hour to an hour. but when it gets started we're certainly going to expect to hear a lot of hot topics. neil, one fun, interesting thing will be to see of the four tech giants, who has the best zoom backdrop. neil? neil: i always live for that. you know some of them are so corny, but these guys, you know, this is what they do, so maybe

you want to have very impressive backdrop. if you overdo it, hillary, looks like your showing off. that is very good point. real quickly, hillary. do we know why there is this delay? do we know what happened or what? reporter: we know the judiciary committee has an immigration hearing right now. we're hearing that is part of the delay but i also did talk to one person said there might be some tech issues involved. we don't know if that is related to the ceos showing up today or on the side of the committee. we'll see if they get that worked out as well. neil? neil: got it. hillary, this is the subcommittee of the that deals with antitrust issues but remember, if you serve on the judiciary committee itself you are also going to have to be there for general committee meetings as well. facebook will be very scrutinized here. in fact we were taking sort of bets earlier on, not on money by the way, that you could see mark

zuckerberg probably get a disproportionate amount of scrutiny, facebook, certainly tiktok ceo on the wires today, blasting facebook, saying that among other things that we believe that all companies should disclose their algorithms, moderation policies and data flows to all regular players. now i read that several times and i had no idea what he was talking about. apparently what they feel is that this guy is too smart by half. he does a lot of clever things here to sort of keep everything proprietary. he doesn't share the wealth of knowledge here or with other players. now, mark zuckerberg himself is going to come back and say, all right, we'll look attic toke, that is thriving doing very well. by the way, it is a chinese entity panned maybe all of that is a reason for you not to be sew tough on me. it could be an interesting development. fortunately one of my favorite facebook experts is a guy who literally wrote the book on it

here. steve levy, facebook, inside story. great book. really got into the personalities involved. steve, i'm making the leap and the guess here that zuckerberg will get a little more scrutiny than the others. i don't doubt amazon's jeff bezos because it has been so long since he has been on capitol hill, i think you have to go back into the 90's, he might get his share. but they have really a problem with zuckerberg. what do you envision happening right now? >> i agree. of the four ceos zuckerberg is the one people will take the biggest swings at but i do think that, as you mentioned, jeff bezos hasn't been there before. he is the richest guy in the world. the wild card he also owns "the washington post." that might dampen some people's enthusiasm for going after him. other people might double down on it because the post-seems to be on one side of the political spectrum.

buff i think that facebook, throughout this whole, what is called the tech lash, where people are looking more critically at these tech companies, facebook is the one that has gotten the most scrutiny. people are the most unhappy with. they have done, you know, not enough in the views of everyone and even facebook, constantly says, this is big refrain for them, we have work to do. we have work to do. they have a lot of work to do today in congress. neil: you know, timing is everything, but as you reported in the past, through all of this criticism of both parties, of all of these stocks, you have their bumps, they're all in and out of all-time highs. i think it is markets way i saying this is kabuki theater, yelling back and forth, a lot of media moments, nothing will come of it, what do you say? >> throughout the whole history of it, when you look at facebook, even in the worst periods of criticism and scandal

, cambridge analytica, their stock kept going up. we're in the stock market. people are looking for some security, where they put their money. these companies have managed to be the place where, they're the modern blue-chips. they're the blue-chips of our era, i don't see that changing. this is antitrust hearing. anti-trust is a very slow process. if there is going to be a ruling eventually against one of these companies or several of them, it will take years to come about. short-term impact might be they will be constrained in purchasing other companies and making deals but, i think that, it really is a stake in the ground for future controls, really a battle behind the scenes for who is going to set the rules for the next stage of the internet. congress is not well-positioned to do. that they can't agree on

anything. neil: no, i hear you. you know him far better than i, steve, the last same mark zuckerberg was on capitol hill, the guy is genius or gazillionaire, i get it. almost like a hostage take. like a deer in pa headlights. not very cool under pressure. he was taking a lot of questions. they were loaded for bear, i get that, but that was not a memorable moment. how do you think he will do today? >> i think he will do okay. the last time was last fall and he really, you know, got, particularly from some of the younger democratic legislators, aoc, and katy hill, a couple others they are really tough on him. maxine waters the chair of that committee was very hard on him. and he took some blows but behind the scenes you saw a difference between the time he testified in 2019 and 2018.

specifically, he won the republicans over. in his first appearance he got a lot of criticism. time after time they criticized him for conservative cone tent. is facebook censoring it? you will still see some of that. they have done a lot of groundwork to try to placate the right at facebook and you know, the timing maybe isn't great because it comes at a time where facebook is under pressure to frankly censor donald trump's tweets which violate their standards. it's a flash point there and not great timing for mark zuckerberg. neil: yeah, it is going to be wild. thank you very, very much, steven. i want to go to john bussey of "the wall street journal." john, one of the things i found curious of this the advice zuckerberg and others were getting. you cannot win in scenario like this. i think it was your fine paper that said you try not to lose.

how do you avoid losing. >> this is as much a moment for the executives to be before the public to state their cases as it is to be before congress. so there is a kind of a public relations battle taking place here. you don't want to lose that one, because that is going to be key. they have a lot of customers. they have a lot of proponents. they want to influence public opinion about what the antitrust authorities are saying is an emerging antitrust problem. all of that, all of that is kind of a difficult territory, neil. you know, admittedly there is questions about constraint on economic activity and anti-competitiveness. are they simply too big. are they crowding out competitors. stifling innovation. these are the arguments against them. look, amazon has 39% of online shopping, it happens on amazon. google and facebook have a grip on line advertising.

apple has its app store and the fee that is it charges people too. so there is definite economic cone constraint arguments to be made. they say they are fonts of innovation. a lot of their products are free to consumers. consumers choose to go to google. i'm not really sure congress has, congress is dealing with antitrust laws promulgated in 1890, 1914. these are long time ago laws meantme tot t t assdd dreomssiny en upenow sortf ol oompanies addressedrdrd. e lesseee aere a a a going t beb gotoin bg eing e lit atlitit hao yap tploapplheapseplheomhe comea .nedpp wenicrosoftrosoft t tbuybuhe bheehe har to t t apy to t t ces.. o,hi qhiuesthiiouenio o o wha n nt nt andnd how h f getss bsack bacthe mt on. wh awhrewhrewh sreck ssreck contio up. because i think the stock market

has digested that. neil: you could be right. i know this is the subcommittee of the house judiciary committee. as you recall, john, yesterday, things goat a little heated. i wonder whether some of the theatricses on both parties part will play a roll here. i want to review some choicer items from yesterday. take a look. >> actually i need the answer to that question. >> mr. attorney general, you answered question. >> you said under penalty of perjury. i will answer the damn question. >> i will answer your question. >> reclaiming my time. >> let him answer. >> reclimbing my time. >> if you want the attorney general to come, at least him answer questions and accusations. >> can we make a five minute break, mr. chairman? >> no. neil: i don't know. these guys virtually testifying. so they want to take a break. yes they can. i don't know whether this will get as heated.

you have very vitriolic businessmen and women there, jeff bezos is trying to take over the world. say the same about mark zuckerberg. whether he is leveraging unfairly that advantage he has in social media. i just wonder if it will get maybe because of the more virtual nature of it, anything like it got with the attorney general in person yesterday? >> we'll see. and maybe the virtual nature of it does somehow diminish the temperature in the room. multiple rooms. and yesterday, it was heavy into politics. you know barr is at the center of all sorts of conflicts between the congress and the president and has played a not just a role but a strong role, that is highly controversial. lear politics will probably enter -- a lot is about economic restraint and competition.

these are economic arguments that can get heated but perhaps not quite as partisan but when it comes to facebook that is a different story. this is a platform that has serviced a number of viewpoints that both sides of the political spectrum find odious. there has been problems with hate speech on the platform. all the things that we know about facebook has been not as aggressive as it should have been to address. that is the view of the critics of facebook. so that gets at not just an economic argument but as a, it is not just an economic threat but a threat to democracy, i think that some of the critics of the company seeking to say, right? they will frame it in that way. that could get heated. neil: the president already tweeted about this, saying if congress doesn't bring fairness

to big tech which she should have done years ago i will do it myself with executive orders. he goes on to say, john, in washington it is all talk and no action for years and the people, our country of our country are sick and it tired of it. he has talked again, some of them getting to play off that old cliche, too big for their britches. is there a push to break some of these guys up? >> well that is the talk that you do hear. that is what antitrust can do. it can either cause a a companyo change its behavior, follow rules to restrict behavior that was considered to be non-competitive. or it can break it up. at&t goes from ma bell to baby bells. standard oil gets broken up decades ago and exxon, chevron, as a result of the break up. that could theoretically happen here. it is, it is a pretty austere

conclusion to what is the beginning of the discussions about these, these new types of companies that bring into question all sorts of flue issues. it is not simply where are you going to get your oil from, where are you going to get your steel from. these are information based companies. they are advertising based companies. are they simply successful and successful they got in early? or are they crowding out competition now that would otherwise be there and benefiting the consumer, had these companies not gotten sew big. these will be big philosophical, technical arguments that will take some time to resolve. neil: john, don't go anywhere. you were kind enough to stay around. we do appreciate that my friend. we're waiting for this to kick off in ten minutes.

we tell you about the big names involved here. some big news concerning jeff bezos. more to the point his wife, mckenzie scott, we're learning gave more than $1.7 billion to various charities including half a billion to the racial equity fund, the lgbtq and equity fund. another 46 million. 55 million to empathy and bridging divides programs. and about 128 million to public health. 130 million to global development. 125 million to climate change. of course she was famous in her divorce that split the amazon, you know, empire, if you will, still keeping jeff bezos the richest man on earth. it was amicable split. her first big charitable spree since that divorce. that too, it could come up today. the ceos were all told to a man, anything and everyone is on

the docket. we'll have more after this. businesses are starting to bounce back. but what if you could do better than that? like adapt. discover. deliver. in new ways. to new customers. what if you could come back stronger? faster. better. at comcast business, we want to help you not just bounce back. but bounce forward. that's why we're helping you stay ahead and adapt with a network you can count on, 24/7 support and flexible solutions that work wherever you are. call or go online today.

in a highly capable lexus suv. at the golden opportunity sales event. get zero percent financing on all 2020 lexus models. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

♪. neil: some of the world's richest, influential men are about to testify own capitol

hill virtually. they will take questions of jeff bezos of amazon, mark zuckerberg of facebook, sundar pichai of course of google alphabet fame, and tim cook of apple. each worth at least $2 billion. when you go all the way up to zuckerberg, close to 90 billion and bezos north of 180 billion. those are charlie gasparino numbers. he joins us to give us a preview. what we might expect. what do you think, bud? >> i think they will be very deferential. they won't be able start any arguments. i think mark zuckerberg will be better prepared at this time. what they're saying behind the scenes as opposed to what they say in congress. behind the scenes tech companies are, maybe, maybe it is wishful thinking but they are pretty confident they will get through the scrutiny. here is the thing. if in the republican administration of justice department led by mr. barr and

donald trump, yeah, there is going to be a lot of sabre-rattling. trump put out a tweet saying he will hold them accountable. they don't see any major action proantitrust regulatory standpoint. stuff around the edges. there is a doj case against google pending. there is unclear they will affect the business model. the stocks are not trading like they will. the rubber meets the road, if joe biden gets there, if there is congressional pressure from elizabeth warren who is activist on this issue, massachusetts senator, particularly if the democrats take the senate, there will, could be, major action against these firms. here is why these firms are still pretty, pretty positive about things and why the stocks are up. you literally have to go at each firm one at a time. that will eat up so much doj resources, if they brought, they would have to bring five antitrust cases. i think it is very difficult to bring one major case against

five firms. various facts and circumstances that separate out each of these companies. including apple. apple doesn't do a lot of stuff other guys do but it is a closed system. there is other antitrust concerns involving a closed system. you have to bring five separate cases. the tech companies are saying, go, bring it on. we have lots of lawyers. we'll roll the dies in courts. that is what you're getting out of these stock prices. it is such a long game for even the most activist doj, antitrust division to bring a case against five big firms. the trump administration on the other hand, again they believe that the president and barr, they talk a good game but are they really going to destroy the stock market now? here is the thing donald trump, everybody knows, it is the, it is, no one is talking about it overtly, it is so true. these companies are leading the stock market rally as we have right now. if donald trump goes after them

right now, he will take away at least one more reason to vote for him, which is, a stock market decline. it will happen if these firms are attacked by his attorney general and he knows that. bar knows that. so, the calculus among the tech firms is, hey, these guys could talk a good game. we don't buy it. they will get us with major enforcement action. if democrats get in there, particularly the senate as well, we'll roll the dies in court. it's a long game. you will have to bring five separate enforcement actions. that in a nutshell why the stock is up. s. neil: the wild card today could be jeff bezos. it has been decades since he was up on capitol hill. >> that's a good point. neil: he is a target of republicans, and connection of "washington post," that may or may not help the way he is treated. by others, there is a guy who

leveraged his success to take over e-commerce. amazon accounts for better than 40% of all e-commerce sales. a little more than four or 5% general retail sales. he might be a target today. how do you expect all of that to go? >> he probably will be a target. buff i think bezos knows his bigger existential sort of problem, it is not existential, it's a business problem, if the democrats win in november and biden wins and they take the senate. there will be legislation, tax legislation to prevent him from paying amazon, essentially zero taxes. there are two companies basically get away with paying almost no taxes, that is apple and amazon. i can guarranty you, elizabeth warren who will be very powerful in the senate. i don't believe she will be, barring some miracle, she will not be vice president, activist in the senate, democrats will

target amazon and apple on tax legislation to prevent them from paying almost no taxes. by the way there is a whole argument why they should pay no taxes. there is incentives for them to do business a certain way. that is why they get that tax treatment. neil that is where he has the bigger problem, it is in taxes. the same with apple. a lot of that depends who gets elected in the fall. i think bezos knows. that we should point out him dominating e-commerce particularly during the pandemic wasn't the worst thing in the world. you know, people didn't have to go to stores. they can order through amazon. you know, they do a good job in that respect and they, to be honest with you, when we were in lockdown they protect ad lot of people. you may hear him say that. neil: yeah. he is already commenting this morning, look at walmart, they are bigger than we will ever be in the retail arena. when you look online, it's a different story.

it will be an interesting give-and-take. thank you, my friend. always good having you. we're following this. we're also following reports right now that all four of the gentlemen are any and open to any and all yes, sir that will be asked. what is interesting the legal offices were among the firsts especially trying to look bezos for this event, we don't think it's a good idea. kept saying we think it's a very good idea. ultimately the lawyers at amazon said we'll do it, we which be there. but we want to make sure all others will show up. they had to check the invite list, is he coming, is he coming? it is on like a party. when people discover neil's there, oh, i'm not going. now they're going. nor more after this. for any amount you choose instead of buying by the share. all with no commissions. stocks by the slice from fidelity.

get your slice today.

stocks by the slice from fidelity. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. neil: welcome back. we're still waiting for that

house judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, to resume right now. resume, hasn't even started. some members there are also members, concurrently of the house judiciary committee which has a regular hearing planned anyway. those members then skedaddle off to the subcommittee hearing, whether they're in person or virtually. all of the, those who are questioned today will be there but virtually not in person. that includes jeff bezos of amazon, tim cook of course of apple, sundar pichai of google, and mark zuckerberg of course of facebook. when they get there we'll go right there. meantime, one of the things getting a great deal of attention whether these guys should be targets. whether they should be either broken up, whether companies like amazon as joe biden has said, paid virtually little if anything of taxes that isn't right. he wants to slap a 15-dollar minimum tax on companies that can do that.

legally i might point out, but that is the backdrop for a lot of this. to steve moore, economic tax svengali, donald trump confidante, let me talk a little bit about how you think these guys should be treated. should they really get scrutinized and ripped apart or just be deferential to them? >> these are the heroes of the american economy. my goodness, and i don't always agree with the political positions and some of the political sentiments of some of these companies, but my god, they're incredible. you're talking about four ceos who represent companies that have, what is it, neil, market capitalization of some five trillion dollars. it is incredible what they have done for the american economy. i'm a big fan of these companies. i think the idea that somehow

economic success and benefits to workers and shareholders should be punished is incredibly anti-american. i'm totally against this. now i'm not saying all their activities are always worth defending but, can you imagine our american economy without google, amazon, apple, and facebook? come on. neil: the president, hope to see some action taken today. he tweeted as much. he didn't really enat this mate exactly what kind of action he is talking about. he mentioned in the past maybe they break these guys up. maybe they go after the likes of facebook that have a bias he says against conservatives. he is not a fan of jeff bezos. maybe it is "the washington post" connection but republicans, democrats each have their own reasons for not flipping over these guys. democrats on largely ignoring foreign election interference

and all, to a man or woman, these are not going to be all rosy and kumbayah questions. why do you think that is? >> you better believe it, it will be pretty hostile i think, it is weirdest thing. because you have some of the more conservative republicans, like matt gaetz, from florida and then you got some of the more, most liberal democrats you can think of like elizabeth warren, all going after these companies. and it is almost like no good deed goes unpunished. some of the activities of these companies, for example, i mentioned their political bias, the fact that they are involved in censorship of conservative free market views. i hate that i certainly think it is appropriate for conservatives to go after that kind of activity. we should have a level playing field but the real question here i think, neil, is whether antitrust, you know, kinds of proceedings are the right way to go after these companies.

how in the world can you say that a company like apple or company like google is a monopoly. look, if monopolies are bad, it is bad because they use monopoly power to raise prices for consumer. wait a minute, google is free. apple raised iphone 25% over last 20 years. cost of delivery thanks to companies like amazon has fallen 50 or 60%. so i see no evidence, neil, consumers are being hurt by these companies. in fact we're all greatly aided by these companies. neil: you know, tim cook has managed to avoid the president's wrath and largely skate by a lot of criticism from democrats and republicans alike. has a delicate balance too and from china. he seems to have deftly done so.

i heard one tech guy tell me not too long ago, that guy could be an ambassador. he is very skillful at balancing this. what do you think of the apple position juxtaposed with these other guys? >> it's a great point, neil, one of the things i don't like about hauling america's ceos in front of congress is they have to play politics. tim cook ask really good at it. he really walked that balancing act not to infuriate republicans or democrats. maybe mark zuckerberg and some others haven't been quite as skillful in that regard, but why does it matter, how good the ceos are at politics. what i want as ceos as a shareholder is somebody puts out great products and somebody who es adding value to my 401(k) plan and my pension plan and so on. you can't argue these companies haven't done that.

they're amazing employers. they have added you know, trillions of dollars of wealth to the american economy and i just hate this idea that somehow getting big is becoming sinister. that is not true. by the way, you know who really wants to sigh these companies like apple and amazon and google broken up? it is the chinese. it is with their companies like huawei and tiktok, they would love to see the united states break these companies up so they can take on the leadership position. neil: you're right. that is a very good point, steve, glad you mentioned. steve moore, good to see you. steve mentioned the tiktok ceo, kevin meyer on the wires today, saying facebook is still shielding things, algorithms, doesn't share the data, how it coalesces data on the social media site. the timing of that not accidental on the very day that facebook ceo mark zuckerberg is going to be grilled virtually by panelists on this committee and

other three as well. stay with us. it's easy to get lost in the economic uncertainty. the volatility. the ambiguity. this moment calls for more. and northern trust delivers more. with specialized expertise. proven strategies rooted in data and analytics... and insights borne from over 130 years of successfully navigating economic turbulence. giving you new clarity. inspiring confidence. and helping you uncover new paths forward. northern trust. wealth management. to visit all the places we didn't know meant so much.s to get out and go again. but we're all going at our own speed. at enterprise, peace-of-mind starts with our complete clean pledge, curbside rentals and low-touch transactions. with so many vehicles of so many kinds, you can count on us to help you get everywhere you want to go...

again. whenever you're ready, we're ready for you. enterprise. and still going for my best. even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib... ...not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm reaching for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. what's next? i'm on board. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily- -and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures.

ask your doctor about eliquis. and if your ability to afford... ...your medication has changed, we want to help.

♪ getting email. neil we're guesting sick of seeing you, when will hearings start. just because you said that i will say it could be for hours. a lot of delay here. a lot of members sit on house judiciary committee, also sit on the subcommittee on antitrust, the ones questioning four ceos, jeff bezos of amazon, mark zuckerberg, sundar pichai, alphabet google fame and tim cook of apple. they are the ones who are delayed. we're told all the billionaires are ready to go virtually. that is exactly how this will be conducted. if you're looking like something we had with bill barr yesterday, the attorney general by the overpaul house judiciary committee, it probably won't be

that, given the virtual nature of that. i want to go to jackie deangelis, also john bussey. "wall street journal" fame. jackie, on how virtual goes it's a whole different beast, isn't it. reporter: i was talking to a attorney doing zoom trials is really difficult. you need to read the room. see what is going on, feel the energy. i look at this in a similar way. a zoom trial where everybody is at home in their own corner, some senses, safely protected in that bubble makes the dialogue and back and forth different, neil. what i also think is really remarkable here, you're putting these four companies together. i look at them as so incredibly different. you look at facebook, you can argue that it is a media company, as well as a technology company. you look at amazon, that is retailer as well as technology company.

you look at apple, and you say, it is about the products and some of the services. so it is like, you're bringing all of these huge issues together. it is not to say that congress doesn't have questions to ask but you're really lumping them up together, rolling them up in a ball, in an incredible way. i am curious to see how they parse through some of these pieces. as we know, some ceos are more will be to step up be forthright, i'm sure they're heavily advised on how to sort of answer these questions today and how to behave. neil: you know, john, we know that there is a lot of bipartisan rage at these, at these companies and the success leveraging too much. democrats who argue they didn't do enough to deal with the foreign election interference. republicans say they hate conservatives. they're loaded for bear, i get that. i'm just wondering who hates them more? is it republicans or the

democrats? >> you will see some of that reflected today. the republicans because they feel that the conservative voices somehow is drowned out on the platforms and amazon's jeff bezos owns "the washington post," et cetera, et cetera. the flipside of that is democrats will say facebook did nowhere near enough to address the problem of foreign intervention, russian intervention, particularly, using the platform to split american opinion with misinformation. and that facebook has to constantly be clobbered over the head to address some of these issues like hate speech or on the platform, et cetera. jackie has got a point. that is a very different issue from what amazon is going to be talking about, which is all about market dominance and the fact that you know, nearly 40% of sales on line take place through amazon and is it

stealing third party data of sellers on the website so that it can go up against those sellers with its own products. so those are very, very different issues. i think that the politics are going to be around, largely around facebook a little bit less around amazon for sure. neil: i want to thank you both very much. the president arrived in midland texas, later going on to odessa, texas, energy, fracking, how things turn around around on his watch. on air force one he was saying choice comments from committee and ceos, they have to do something. he didn't delineate what that something is. he is generally not a fan of these guys. maybe google ceo but with the

others. he adamant they need to do something. this is "cavuto: coast to coast" given my unique lifestyle, that'd be perfect! let me grab a pen and some paper. know what? i'm gonna switch now. just need my desk... my chair... and my phone. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we are waiting for the subcommittee on antitrust to begin, they will question,

wheezing, grilling, whatever the word is, amazon and apple and google and facebook. the gentleman gathered there are worth close to $275 billion collectively. want to stress, they will focus on jeff bezos with $180 million mark zuckerberg about $88 billion. the only issue that's coming up in all of their pre-statements, therefore america consumers and they are looking out for american interests. each has said that the audience of greatest importance to them which will come in handy because this is an american subcommittee. ♪ in your customized view of the market. it's smarter trading technology for smarter trading decisions. fidelity.

♪ you know they say time is money but if you're a billionaire and you are waiting for everyone to get in place for this house judiciary subcommittee, that's not money an hour, i don't know how much that would be, it's been an hour. some of the richest guys on the planet have been stewing in their heels waiting for everyone on the committee to find their seat virtually or otherwise, it

will involve the chairman of amazon and apple, google, facebook and it could be a grilling if it ever getzlaf. hillary, what is the problem? >> they are having technical issues, you can't make this up. i'm hearing from a source inside they are having technical problems not with the tech ceos dialing in but on the committee side, i was told they are aware of technical issues yesterday the problems have not been fixed in their having trouble with those problems now. we haven't received any guidance on when they will get the issues resolved but that we are getting information about with the chairman is going to say in his opening remarks and some of his words are remarkable. you'll refer to all ceos of

emperors of the online economy making the argument is pandemic has put them in a position to profit which is interesting because both google and amazon mentioned the pandemic or will in their opening statements and make the case there helping small businesses stay open. amazon's argument has said the pandemic has made their competitors stronger. over 1 million pages of evidence gathered from 100 different sources, other market rivals that have submitted evidence to the committee of what they call anticompetitive behavior so we are going to see the evidence brought up today and one thing, to say, he mentioned the tech down when the d.o.j. took on microsoft and he said we are in the same situation today so that

gives you an idea of how seriously and grave he sees antitrust issues around all four of these companies. neil: i did not know some of those details, technical issues. it's on the committee side, it's not happening on the ceo side. hillary, thank you very much. i want to go to jeremy, the digital trends editor. this notion that hillary was just raising about the microsoft comparison and the push to break it up and rain in. now they are doing it times for but what do you think? >> a lot of these antitrust debates, they get down to how

you define the market if you're looking at u.s. competitors, they can seem very dominant, i think facebook marks zuckerberg and perhaps others will say we will look at these rising giants on the tech side and they are serving many more customers than we are, they don't want to hamstring us. neil: how do you think this is going to go? >> that's a great question. it's such a broad and sweeping conversation we are having here. with so many aspects of what these companies do, it's hard to see what's going to happen much less if it will be productive. even when there is important people like this, if you like to off and there's a lot of talk and posturing and people trying to get soundbites and at the end of the day, is there anything that emerges that's useful? biggest thing to watch is amazon. jeff bezos is the antitrust at the competition argument is the

strongest. i will be very interesting to see what he says. neil: i think jeremy raised a good points, we are american companies and we love america and we want to help america. jeff bezos, someone saying to fulfill our promises to customers, we need american workers to make products for all american customers. what did you think of that? >> i think that's going to be a theme and obviously the hearing is on antitrust but i think you're probably going to hear a lot about our relationship with the world, our technology companies. i wouldn't be surprised if members are asking for google, you are an american company,

some of your employees seem to think it's more to work for the government for china and the united states department of defense. can america count on you as a technology company in america to work for our national defense? i think some opinions among the ceos how far they should go and what they should do in terms of our government. neil: how far even the committee members will go. he's giving his opening statement, let's go to this right now. >> submissions more than 100 market participants, we conducted hundreds of hours of interviews as part of investigation, we held five hearings to examine the effects of innovation and entrepreneurship. data privacy, free press,

independent businesses on the online marketplace. seventeen briefings and roundtables with over 35 experts and stakeholders in support of our work. this investigation is in bipartisan from the start. it's an honor to work alongside my colleagues as well as the bully ranking members, congressman doug collins. we were close with all members of the subcommittee, we take this work seriously and study these issues carefully. my colleague is only commented, this is the most bipartisan effort of been involved with in 5.5 years in congress. the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the dominance of amazon, apple, facebook and google. amazon runs the largest ongoing marketplace in america capturing 70% of all online marketplace

sales. it operates across a vast array of businesses from cloud computing and movie production to transportation logistics and small business funding. amazon recently hit one of the half trillion dollars more than walmart, target, ibm, ebay and fc combined. apple is a dominant provider of smart phones with more than 100 million iphone users in united states alone. apple sells services and apps including financial services, the and games. facebook is the world just provider of social networking services with a business model that sells digital ads. facebook continues to enjoy booming profits. $18 billion last year alone. lastly, google is the world's

largest online search engine. capturing more than 90% of searches online. it can control key technologies and digital at market and more than 1 billion users across six products including browsers, smart phones and digital apps. prior to the covid-19 pandemic, the corporations stood out as titans in our economy. in the wake of covid-19, and are likely to emerge stronger and powerful more than ever before. meghan families shift more work, shopping and communication online, the giants stand to profit. on businesses meanwhile, mom and pop stores on main street faced a crisis unlike any in recent history. it's hard to believe it's possible we will emerge from this crisis more concentrated and consolidated than before. these companies serve as critical arteries of commerce and communication. because the companies are central to our modern life, the business practices and decisions have outside effect on our economy and democracy. any single action by one of these companies can affect hundreds of millions and profound and lasting ways. although these corporations differ in these ways, we've observed, and patterson competition problems over this

investigation. each platform is a bottleneck for key channel of distribution. the control access to information, the platforms have the incentive and ability to exploit this power. they can charge a fee, impose impressive contracts, obstruct information from the people and businesses that rely on them. uses control to surveilled other companies their growth is an activity and whether they might pose a competitive threat. each platform used this to protect its power by buying, copying of cutting off access for potential rivals. the platforms have used their control over current technologies to extend the power whether to self referencing,

predatory pricing are required to buy additional products, they wield their power and destructive, harmful ways to expand. we will examine how these companies used this to achieve and maintain dominance and have their power shapes and affects daily lives. why does it matter? many of the practices used of harmful economic effects, to discourage entrepreneurship, destroy jobs, hike costs and degrade quality. simply put, too much power. this power is competition, creativity and innovation. they produce innovative products, their dominant is killing small businesses, manufacturing and overall dynamism, the engines of the economy. several of them harm and abuse people's data, selling ads from new books to dangerous so-called miracle cures. everyday americans learned much of the data is being mined, they can't be right away fast enough. many cases, there's no escape because there's no alternative. people are stuck with bad

options. if the company harms people, they would choose another option. we are here today because that choice is no longer possible. i'm confident addressing the problems we see will lead to a stronger, more innovative economy. this leads to political power, this investigation goes to the heart of where we, as a people, govern ourselves or whether we let ourselves be governed by private monopolies. american democracy has been at war against monopoly power. we've recognized concentrated markets and political control were incompatible with democratic ideals. the american people confronted monopolies in the past, oil or at&t and microsoft, we took actions to ensure no corporation controls our economy or democracy. we face similar challenges today. the digital economy, these platforms enjoy winners and

losers to shakedown small businesses and enrich themselves on choking off competitors. they dictate terms, call the shots, upend entire sectors and inspire fear represented powers of private government. our founders would not bow before king nor should we bow before the emperor's of the online economy. i recognize ranking member of the subcommittee for opening statement. >> thank you. i want to thank the ceo for working with the subcommittee to appear today. memorial service for john lewis monday required our attention. this hearing is final two oversight work and i appreciate your flexibility. throughout my time in congress, of prioritized oversight is one of our seminal responsibilities. part of that responsibility is the periodically review the effectiveness of our laws. i think it is good and timely thing we are now turning our

attention to technological innovations which brings us to all of your companies. our countries stricken by the pandemic, it becomes a dramatic illustration of the extraordinarily reliance americans have on technological innovations. unexpected and unprecedented times, your companies have provided innovations for our nations can meet our daily needs, the delivery of groceries, virtual visits for doctors, connecting socially distant families. small and large businesses are kept connected. that responsibility comes with scrutiny in the marketplace. i want to reiterate something i said throughout this investigation. being big is not inherently bad. quite the opposite. in america, you should be rewarded for success. we are here to better understand the role your companies have in the digital marketplace.

important, the effect they have on consumerism, the public at large. today's more powerful companies and my colleagues and i have a great interest about what your companies do with that accumulated power. we also know the marketplace is driven by data. those who control the data, control the marketplace. there are broader questions surrounding data. who owns the data? what response police companies have to share it with their customers? for their competitors? what is the fair market value of that data? is there anything monopolistic in acquiring this data? what about monetizing it? these are complex issues that congress regulators and even your own companies are wrestling with in the current technological landscape. the answers to which we owe the

american consumers. since the investigation began, we heard rumblings from many who are quick to say your successful companies have grown so large. this hearing was announced, it seems the complaints have got even louder. while i find these complaints informative, i don't plan on it litigating each of these complaints today. antitrust law and the consumer welfare standard served this country well for over a century. those laws have provided the framework and creativity to make way for some of our most successful and innovative companies. i will be the first to highlight that. however, as the business landscape involved, we must ensure our existing antitrust laws are applied to meet the needs of our country and its consumers. i share the concern market

dominance in the digital space is right for abuse. particularly when it comes to free speech. as we know, companies like facebook, google, youtube and twitter have become the public square of today were political debate unfolds in real time but reports that the sending abuse often conservative views, are targeted or sensors as seriously troubling. conservatives are consumers, too. they need the protection of the antitrust laws. the power to influence today with its remarkable responsibilities. the facts be our guide here. the companies are large, that is not a problem. your companies are successful, that is not a problem either. but i want to leave here today with a more complete picture of how your individual companies use your size, success and power

and what it means to the american consumer. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes the full committee, gentlemen from new york for his opening statement. >> thank you. i want to thank you and the subcommittee members for the tremendous effort you have all put into this subcommittee investigation. i appreciate you calling this hearing today so we can hear directly from the leaders of amazon, apple, facebook and google and i look forward to an important dialogue. today, it's effectively impossible to use the incident without using the services of these four companies. i have long believed with thomas jefferson and lewis, the concentration of power in any form, especially concentration of economic or political power endangered democratic society. that's why we must examine these and other companies that play a dominant role in our economy and society. ensure our antitrust laws, and forces the tools they need to

have a healthy marketplace. they've guided this investigation and competition in the market and their the lens through which i approach today's hearing. the opening internet has delivered enormous benefit to americans including search of economic opportunity, massive investments, new pathways for education online. there is growing evidence a handful of corporations have captured outside share of online commerce communications. provided dominant search platform, retail platform and online messaging platform to provide the underlying services and which hundreds of thousands of other businesses rely, these dominant platforms comprise the essential infrastructure for the 21st century. our virtual control and infrastructure, these companies have the ability to control access to markets. some basic ways, the problem is

not unlike what we faced 130 years ago. when railroads transformed american life. enabling producers to produce new markets but also creating the key chokehold monopolies exploit. notoriously help use this to keep power in a variety of ways. they charge tolls, extorting producers reliant on their rails, they discriminated among farmers, taking winners and losers across the economy. businesses that introduce, they could use their transportation to favor their own services. these tactics speared. and despair across the country. the document for these problems, the halt and outlaw for practices in the railroad industry and other industries, dominated by unregulated monopolies and trust. important, congressional oversight and legislative reforms during this, did not

prevent arrival of new technology or progress. instead, congress recognizes these powerful new technologies reshaped the balance of power in our economy. to ensure the monopolists could not abuse their power. today the digital economy poses similar challenges. while the underlying technology dramatically is different from acute digital intermediaries have the ability to control access to the markets. if you're an independent merger, you are increasingly reliant on these powerful intermediaries, markets and consumers. across the economy, many businesses live in fear of exclusion from these platforms. some companies shared with the committee over the past year during this investigation. the subcommittee's current review of competition in the digital marketplace continues a long tradition of this committee of oversight of antitrust laws

and our economy. in the days chairman, the house judiciary committee and subcommittee have conducted careful into industrial sectors and anticompetitive conduct. this is continued on a bipartisan basis over the years from chairman brooks and others. in 1950 report from the subcommittee on monopoly power described our mandate, is this subcommittee to investigate factors which tend to eliminate competition, strengthen monopolies, injure small businesses or promote undue concentration of economic power. following this tradition, our investigation and hearings with witnesses, subject matter experts and the careful and painstaking review of evidence

provided by industry participants and regularities. ultimately, its responsibility of antitrust enforcement agencies to enforce the law. congress has an obligation for the existing antitrust laws and competition policies and the will to enforce the laws and policies are adequate to address the competition issues facing our country and take action they are found to be lacking. given the role these four companies like our economy and society, it's only reasonable our careful examination of the antitrust laws begin with them. i appreciate the participation of all of our witnesses today, investigation would not be complete without hearing from the decision-makers of these companies and i look forward to the testimony and their discussion. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i now recognize ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from ohio.

>> thank you. i want to thank the ranking member of this subcommittee, i'm not sure how many more committee hearings this subcommittee or full committee are going to have this congress but i want to thank jim for his great work for the constituents of his district in wisconsin for this many years in the work he's done for this entire committee. big tech is conservatives. that's not a suspicion or a hunch, that's a fact. july 2020, google removes homepages of the daily caller. last night, google censored summit traffic, it's declined 90 time present. google banned federalist. april 19, 2020, google and youtube announced a policy censoring the content that conflicts with recommendations the world health organization. think about that. world health organization, it lied to us and shows for china.

if you contradict something they say, they can say whatever they want. they can life with china. you say something against them, you get censored. in 29, 2020, was on band president trump account on twitch after he raises concerns about defunding the police. june 4, 2020, critical of the lockdown written by conservative commentator. may 27, 27 will let you get to the family research council and alliance defense fund but you can get the planned parenthood. facebook, june 19, 2020, takes down post from president trump's reelection campaign. facebook silences a pro-life organization to advertise. may 19, 2016, facebook former facebook employees admit facebook routinely suppresses conservative views. i haven't even mentioned twitter. we actually invited, we ask for

you guys to invite them as one of our witnesses, you said no. i haven't even mentioned them. two years ago, two members of this committee. for members of congress shadowed band two years ago. only four. only four shadowed band. tell us, is just a glitch in our algorithm. i asked, what did you put the algorithm? if i had a nickel for every time i heard it was just a glitch, i wouldn't be as wealthy as our witnesses but i would be doing all right. we've heard that excuse time and time again. may 28, twitter senses president trump's tweet on the rise minneapolis. the white house loaded the president's comments about the riots in minneapolis, june 23, 2020, twitter senses the president again for saying he'll enforce the rule of law against any autonomous in washington d.c. you can tweet all you want on

what happened in seattle but the president said he will have one in washington d.c., no, you can't do that. you get band, censored. dozens of examples, i forgot one. lastly, july 21, is what twitter did. the leader of iran, is one of public of iran, largest states public, islamic republic of iran will never forget the martyrdom of soleimani and will definitely strike reciprocal blow in the united states. you can threaten the citizens of this great country, the leader of the largest sponsor of terrorism, that is fine but all the president said is he's not going to allow autonomous zone in d.c. and he get censored. all kinds of examples, most of them from this year end that's what's critical for all of us to understand.

most from this year, an election year and that's what concerns me and so many americans because we saw what google did in 2016. we all know about the e-mail the day after the election were executives at google e-mailed what they talked about, the silent donation, google made to the clinton campaign. thank goodness it wasn't enough and in spite their efforts to help clinton, president trump won. we are 97 days before an election. the power as the previous chairman and ranking member has said, power these companies have to impact what happened during the election, what american citizens get to see prior to their voting is pretty darn important. that's why this committee hearing is important. well think the free market is great, competition is great, we love the fact that these are

making companies but what is not great, censoring people and impacting elections. if it doesn't end, there has to be consequences. that's what i am concerned about and what so many americans are concerned about so i look forward to hearing from witnesses. before i yield back, we have a colleague, i would ask unanimous consent that mr. johnson, the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee be allowed to participate in today's hearing which is our customary practice for subcommittee hearings. >> unanimous consent. >> i would object. >> objection heard. >> why are we not allowing -- >> unanimous consent request, objection was heard and we will introduce witnesses. >> this never happened -- >> our first witness is jeff bezos -- >> mr. jordan, i have the time.

>> we are talking about people's liberties. >> mr. jordan, ian made an enormous consent request, objection was hurt. it's now my pleasure to introduce jeff bezos. >> mr. bezos founded amazon in 19 -- excuse me. i'm going to remind members of this committee, unless you're speaking, rules require you to wear a mask. i speaking to another member of the committee. i'll begin again. it is my pleasure to introduce today's witnesses. our first witness is jeff bezos. chief executive of amazon.com. he founded amazon in 1994 as an online bookstore. since then, amazon has grown to be the largest online retailer on the internet. his expanded into areas including cloud computing, digital streaming and artificial intelligence. mr. bezos received a masters of science from princeton university. the second witness the chief executive of alphabet and

google. mr. pichai joined in 2004, google chrome, gmail and android operating systems. he oversaw the company's popular search product prior to his time at google, he worked in management. he received a degree in engineering from the indian institution of technology, masters degree from stanford university and mba from the school of university of pennsylvania. third witness is tim cook, chief executive officer of apple. he joined in 1998 and served as chief operation officer until it under seized jobs. in 2011, mr. cook was named ceo. while apple, he's overseen expansion into new markets, wanted development of products and services like apple pie, applesauce, ipad, apple card. he served as director of north american fulfillment for ibm prior. he received a bachelor of

science and mba from duke university, school of business. mark zuckerberg, founder, chairman and ceo of facebook. he initially launched facebook to connect college student at school more easily. since then, they've grown into the world's largest social media platform with 1.7 billion global daily active users. he attended harvard university before leaving to focus full-time on developing facebook. we welcome all of our established witnesses and thanked them for participating in today's hearing and i will begin by swearing you and and before i do, i want to remind you you're the only ones from your respective companies invited to testify today. according to normal as practiced in section g, the preceding regulations, your sworn testimony must be your own. let me know if you wish to mute yourself so you can confer with

your counsel. please unmute your microphones and raise your right hands. do you swear or affirm under perjury the testimony you are about to give is true and correct for the best of your knowledge, information and belief so help you god? >> yes. >> let the records show the affirmative thank you. please note your written statements we in the record for the entirety. i ask you summarize your testimony and five minutes to help you stay within that time, there is a timing in webex. when it switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude and when it turns red, it signals the time has expired. mr. bezos, you may begin. >> thank you.

i was born into great wealth. not monetary wealth but the wealth of a loving family. a family that fostered my curiosity and encouraged me to dream big. my mom, jackie, had me when she was a 17-year-old high school student in albuquerque. being pregnant in high school, it was not popular. the school tried to kick her out but she was allowed to finish after my grandfather negotiated terms with the principal. she couldn't have a locker, new extra feelers and couldn't walk across the stage to get her diploma. she graduated and was determined to continue her education so she enrolled in night school, bringing me, her infant son, to class with her throughout. my dad's name is miguel. he adopted me when i was four. his 16 when he came to the u.s. from cuba by himself shortly after castro took over. he didn't speak english and didn't have an easy path. what he did have was great and determination. he received a scholarship to college in albuquerque which is where he met my mom.

together, with my grandparents, these hard-working resourceful and loving people made me who i am. i walked away from a steady job on "wall street" into a garage to found amazon fully understanding it might not work. it feels like yesterday i was driving packages to the post office myself seeming one day we might afford a forklift. customer obsession has driven our success. i take it as an article of faith that customers notice when you do the right thing. you earn trust slowly, over time by doing hard things well. delivering on-time, offering everyday low prices, making promises and keeping them. making principal decisions, even when they are unpopular. our approach is working. 80% of americans have a favorable impression of amazon overall. who knew americans trust more than amazon to do the right

thing? only their doctors and the military. the retail market we participate in is extraordinarily large and competitive. amazon accounts for less than 1% of the 25 trillion-dollar global retail market in less than 4% of u.s. retail. there's retail for multiple winners. we compete against large established players like target, costco, kroger and walmart. the company more than twice amazon's size. twenty years ago, we made a decision to invite other sellers to sell and are historical to share the same real estate, we spent billions to build market and maintain. we believe combining the strengths of amazon store with the vast selection of products offered by third parties would be a better experience for customers and the growing pile of revenue and profits would be big enough for all. we were betting it was not a zero-sum game. fortunately, we were right.

they are now 1.7 million small and medium-size businesses selling on amazon. the trust customers put in as everyday has allowed amazon to create more jobs in the u.s. over the past decade than any other company. hundreds of thousands of jobs across 42 states. amazon employees make minimum $15 an hour, more than double the federal minimum wage. we offer the best benefits, benefits including health insurance, 4o1k retirement and 20 weeks of leave. for the any place on earth, entrepreneur companies start, grow and thrive here in the u.s. we nurture entrepreneurs and startups with stable rule of law, the finance university system in the world, the freedom of democracy and deeply accepted culture of risk-taking. this great nation of ours is far from perfect. even as congressman john lewis

and honor his legacy, we are in the middle of a much needed race reckoning. we also face the challenges of the climate change in income inequality. we are stumbling through the crisis of the global pandemic. still, with all of our faults and problems, the rest of the world would love even the tiniest sip of the elixir we have here in the u.s. immigrants like my dad see what a treasure this country is. they have perspective and often can see even more clearly than those of us who are lucky enough to be born here. still, day one in this country, and even the face of today's humbling challenges, i've never been more optimistic about our future. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, i am happy to take your questions. >> thank you. mr. pichai, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

before i start, i know this hearing was delayed because of the ceremonies, to honor representative john lewis. because of his courage, this world is a better place. this discussion about opportunity, there's never been more importance of the global pandemic, challenges to our health and economy. expanding access to opportunity through technology, i didn't have much growing up in india so you can imagine my amazement when i arrived in the u.s. for graduate school and saw computers to use in a lab, whenever i wanted. accessing internet for the first time sent me on a path to bring technology to as many people as possible. it inspired me to build schools first chrome. eleven years later, so many people experienced chrome for

free. google takes pride in the number of people who choose our products. we are even prouder of what they do with them. from the 140 million students and teachers using it for education, is they connected during the pandemic. getting digital skills, to all the people who have gone to google from help, to learning how to do something on youtube. gould's work without be possible without innovation. there how to contribute to the future. they've applied more than 75000 people in the u.s. across. in 2018, the u.s. had more than $20 billion in the u.s., citing the largest capital in america. one contribute is by building

helpful products. free services like search, gmail, with thousands of dollars of year for the average american year. many small businesses using these tools to grow. a family owned company in wisconsin uses google my business to draw more customers. appliances, a family owned appliance store in rhode island credits google for helping them reach customers online during the pandemic. nearly one third of small business owners say the digital tools, they would have had to close all product for business during covid. despite being among the world's biggest in research. by the end of 2019, increased tenfold over ten years. from $2.8 billion to $26 billion

and invested over $90 billion the last five years. our engineers are helping america remains a global leader in emerging technology like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. just as america's technology leadership is not inevitable, it's not guaranteed. new ones emerge every day and there's more access to information than ever before. competition drives us to innovate and leads to better products. more choices for everyone. for example, competition is lower online at rising cost, 40% over the last decade. open platforms like android also support the innovation of others, using android, thousands of global operators telling their own devices without paying licensing fees to us. it's enabled billions of consumers to offer cutting edge

smart phones, $54. building tools for small businesses or platforms like android, google succeeds when others succeed. the higher standards of privacy and security. they believed private say is the universal right and they keep your information safe, treating it as possibly, putting you in control and we have long supported the creation of federal privacy laws. i have never forgotten how access to technology and innovation changed the course of my life. google has product that increases access and opportunity for everyone. no matter where you live, what you believe or how much money you have. we are committed to doing this responsibly in partnership with bob makers. they ensure every american has access to the opportunity technology creates. thank you.

>> thank you. mr. cook is now recognized for five minutes. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony. before i begin, i want to recognize life and legacy of john lewis. i join you in mourning, not only a hero but someone i knew personally, his example inspires and guides me still. every american owes john lewis a debt and i feel fortunate to help from a state and country that benefited so profoundly from his leadership. my name is tim cook, i've been apple's ceo since 2011 and i'm proud employee of this uniquely american company since 1998. at apple, we make ourselves a promise and our customers a promise, it's a promise that will only build things that make

us proud. as steve put it, we only make things we would recommend to our family and friends. you can define this difference in a lot of ways. you can call it the seamless integration of hardware and software, you can call it simplicity of design or a great ecosystem. all of those things are true. if you want to put it simply, iphone products just work. when they give iphone 99% satisfaction rating, that's the message they are sending about the user experience but we also know customers have a lot of choices in our products face fierce competition. companies like lg, google, have built successful businesses with different approaches. we are okay with that. our goal is the best, the most.

in fact, we don't have a dominant share in any market or any product category where we do business. what does motivate us is the timeless drive to build new things we are proud to show our users. we focus relentlessly on those innovations, on deepening core principles like privacy and security in creating new features. in 2008, we introduced a new feature of the iphone called the app store. 500 apps, it seems like a lot of the time, the app store provided a safe and trusted way for users to get more out of their phone. we knew the distribution options for software developers at the time didn't work well. brick and mortar stores charged high fees and had limited reach. physical media like cds had to be shipped and were hard to update. from the beginning, the app store was a revolutionary

alternative. app store developers set prices for their apps and never paid for shelf space. we provide every developer with cutting edge tools like compilers, programming languages and more than 150,000 central software building blocks called apis. the app store guidelines ensure high quality, reliable and secure user experience. they are transparent and applied equally to every developer. the vast majority of apps developers keep one 100% of the money they make. the only apps subject to a commission for those where the developer acquires a customer on an apple device and where beecher and services will be experienced and consumed on an apple device. in the app stores, within ten years history, we've never raised a commission or added a single fee. we've reduced it for subscriptions and exempted additional categories of apps.

i'm here today because it's reasonable and appropriate, we approached this process with respect and humility. we make no concession on the facts. what began this 500 apps is now more than 1.7 million, only 60 of which are apple software. if apple is a gatekeeper, what we've done is open the gate wider. we want to get every app we can on the store, not keep them off. the app stores economic contributions are significant. ecosystem is responsible for 1.9 million jobs in all 50 states and facilitated 138 billion in commerce in the u.s. in 2019 alone. i share the committee's belief that competition promotes innovation, it makes space for the next great idea and it gives consumers more choices. since apple was founded, these things have defined us. the first opportunity and possibility into the home, the ipod helped musicians and artists share the creations and

be paid fairly for it. his legacy does much more than make us proud, inspiring us to work tirelessly to make sure tomorrow will be even better than today. thank you very much, i look forward to responding to your questions. >> thank you, mr. cook. mr. zuckerberg is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to add my voice to those honoring congressman john lewis and his service to our country. america lost a real hero who never stopped fighting for the rights of every person. ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. the tech industry is an american success story. the products we build have changed the world and improve people's lives. our industry is one of the ways america shares values with the world and one of our greatest economic and cultural exports. facebook is part of the story,

we started with an idea to give people the power to share and connect. we built services and billions of people find useful. i'm proud we've given people who never had a voice before the opportunity to be heard. even small businesses access to tools, only the largest players used to have. since covid emerged, and proud people have used our services to stay in touch with friends and families who can't be with them in person and keep their small businesses running online when physical stores are closed. i believe facebook in the u.s. tech industry are a force for innovation and empowering people. i recognize there are concerns about the size and power of tech companies. our services are about connection in our business model is advertising. we face intense competition in both. many competitors have hundreds of millions or billions of users. some are upstarts but others are gatekeepers with the power to decide if we can release our

apps in the app stores to compete with them. in many areas, we are behind our competitors. most popular messaging services is my message. the fastest growing app is tik tok. the most popular app for video is youtube. the fastest platform is amazon. the largest platform is google. for every dollar spent on advertising in the u.s., less than 10 cents is spent with us. we are here to talk about online platforms but i think the true nature of competition is broader. when google bought youtube, they could compete against the dominant cable industry. when amazon bought whole foods, they could compete against kroger. we can compete against health codes used to send tens cents a message, but not anymore. they can get groceries delivered

through private messages for free. new companies are created all the time all over the world. history shows if we don't keep innovating, someone will replace every company here today. that change can happen faster than you expect. the ten most valuable companies a decade ago only three still make that list today. if you look at where the top technology company is coming from, the vast majority are american. today, almost half are chinese. aside from competition, there are other serious issues related to the internet including questions about elections, harmful content and privacy and while these are antitrust issues and are not specifically the topic of today's hearing, i recognize we are often at the center of these discussions. we build platforms for sharing ideas and they play out across

our services. i believe this leads to more progress ultimately but it means we often find ourselves in the middle of disagreements about social issues and high stake elections. i personally don't believe private companies should make so many decisions about these issues by themselves. that's why last year, i make the case that needs to be new regulation for the internet. facebook stands for basic set of principles, giving people voice and opportunity, keeping people safe, upholding democratic traditions like freedom of expression and voting and enabling an opening competitive marketplace. these are fundamental values most of us but not for everyone. as global competition increases, there's no guarantee our values will win out. i'm proud of the services we build and how they improve people's lives. we compete hard. we compete fairly. we tried to be the best. that's what i was taught matters in this country. we succeed, it's because we deliver great experiences that people love. thank you and i look forward to

answering your questions. >> thank you, thank you for the witnesses opening statements. without objection, i'm going to enter into the hearing record documents and exhibits majority members will reference. these materials have been distributed to the witnesses on our this. i will recognize myself five minutes. over 80% of online searches go through google. every online company depend on google to reach users. the business may sink or swim based on google's decisions alone. unlike businesses told us google steals the content and privileges its own sites in ways that prophet google would crush everyone else. they are asked to stay anonymous

that google would retaliate chicken scum. google's decision traffic dropped by 80%, downsized his business and laid off half his staff. he told us if someone came to a website or web service today, i would tell them to run as far away from the web as possible. launch a dog grooming business or something google can't take away as soon as they are thriving. first question, why does google still content from honest businesses? >> i disagree with that categorization. lastly, i met with many small businesses. today we support 1.4 billion small businesses. $385 billion. we see many businesses thrive, particularly even during the pandemic, businesses and example

example -- >> i have limited time but my question is very specific. we've heard throughout this investigation that google has stolen content to build your own business. these are consistent reports so your testimony that it doesn't happen is inconsistent with what we've learned during the course of the investigation but i'll move on to a new question. most americans believe when they enter search for google shows the most relevant results, increasingly, google just shows what is most profitable for google. google's ads for google's own sites. is there a. >> we have always focused on provides users the most relevant information and we rely on the trust for users to come back to google every day. in fact the vast majority of queries in google we don't show ads at all. we show ads for only small

subset of queries where the content from users is highly commercial. they may be looking for something like tv sets. >> mr. pichai what is the value of the part you do use google ads for? it is substantial part of your business. what is the actual value, 200 billion, 300 billion? in terms of revenue that is 100 plus billion dollars. >> that is a lot of money, mr. pichai. really, mr. pichai, google's business model is the problem. they evolved from turnstile to rest of the web, to wall guard increasingly keeps users within its sites. emails show that decade ago google started to fear competition from different websites, web pages that could divert search traffic from google. they show the google's discussed proliferating threat these web pages posed to google. any traffic lost to other sites

was a loss to google's revenues. that certain websites were getting quote, too much traffic. so google decided to put an end to that. mr. pichai, you have been at google since 2004. were you involved in the discussions with threat of toe google search. >> i'm not really clear of the context but definitely when we look at vertical searches it validates the competition we seek. for example, when users come looking to shop online, independent studies show that over 55% of product searches originate with amazon and over 70% originate with the major e-commerce companies. in the few categories which are commercial in nature, we see vigorous competition, be it travel, be it real estate and we are working hard for -- >> let me ask you specifically, mr. pichai. the evidence that we collected showed google pursued a multipronged attack. first google began to steal other web pages content. for example, 2010 google stole

restaurant reviews from yelp to boost it bootstrap it as rival search business. do you know how google responded when yelped ask you to stop stealing your reviews? i will tell you. our investigation shows that the google's response was to threaten to delist yelp entirely. google's choice, let us steal your content or you will disappear from web. mr. pichai, is that anticompetitive? >> congressman, when i run the company i'm really focused on giving users what they want. we conduct ourselves to the highest standard. happy to engage to understand the specifics and answer your questions further. >> one final series of questions, mr. pichai. did google every use surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats? >> congressman, just like other businesses we try to understand trends from you know, data which we can see and we use it to

improve our products for our users but we are really focused on improving our products and that is -- >> i appreciate that, mr. pichai. google's own documents, numerous interviews with companies affected by this content show google did just that. which is very disturbing and very anti-competitive. in addition to stealing content google began to privilege its own sites. a investigative report published just yesterday, 63% of web searches start on google also end somewhere on google's own websites. to me that is evidence that google is increasingly a walled garden keeps users on google sites even if google doesn't have the most relevant information and catastrophically economically for other companies on line. my time is running out, mr. pichai. the evidence is very clear to me, as google became the gateway to the internet. it began to abuse its power. it used surveillance over the internet to identify threats and crush them t dampened