All Episodes
Previous Next
April 6, 2022 - Firebrand - Matt Gaetz
38:04
Episode 36 LIVE: How to Beat Big Tech (feat. Rep. Ken Buck) – Firebrand with Matt Gaetz
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Matt Gaetz right now, he's a problem in the Democratic Party.
He can cause a lot of hiccups in passing applause.
So we're going to keep running those stories to get hurt again.
Stand for the flag and kneel in prayer.
If you want to build America up and not burn her to the ground, then welcome, my fellow patriots.
You are in the right place.
This is the movement for you.
You ever watch this guy on television?
Like a machine, Matt Gaetz.
I'm a canceled man in some corners of the internet.
Many days I'm a marked man in Congress, a wanted man by the deep state.
They aren't really coming for me.
They're coming for you.
I'm just in the way.
...with a free market.
The reason Facebook is so powerful is because we all use them.
What we need to do is vote with our feet.
And that is the first thing you should do is go home and close your Facebook account and tell your friends because that is how you get these people.
We are live.
Welcome.
Broadcasting from the Capitol Complex, the Longworth House Office Building.
I've got a terrific guest today that is going to break down the battle against big tech.
Not the talking points, not what you saw right there, but the actual legislation that could become law.
Who we have to work with to make it happen and how that process has been refined over time through Investigations and other critical work of the Antitrust Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee.
So who you just heard?
That was the Ohio U.S. Senate Republican frontrunner, Mike Gibbons.
And I played you that clip from one of the U.S. Senate debates because I wanted to show you that some, not all, but some of the silver-haired leaders of Republicanism still believe that we can vote with our feet and detach ourselves from the digital world.
Build a competitor.
Free markets will save us.
Okay, Boomer.
Ask Parler how that went.
People went and tried to build their own, and yet the powerful forces of big tech were still sufficiently stifling.
Today, major technology platforms have more power than governments themselves, and they're using that power to harm conservatives.
Voting with your feet doesn't work without self-harming unilateral political and really economic disarmament in the information age.
And by the way...
Our man, Mike Gibbons, who told people to go unplug their Facebook, has a Facebook page he posted an hour ago.
And so it's just, we can't look to Republican leadership that doesn't offer serious, thoughtful solutions to how people interact with the digital world.
Fortunately, the Heritage Foundation's Kara Frederick put out a report that really gets to the core of this.
It was a jarring report entitled, Combating Big Tech's Totalitarianism, A Roadmap.
So, a few highlights from this Heritage report.
52% of Americans believe that big tech censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story was election interference.
More than half the country.
One in six Biden voters would have changed their mind had they seen the Hunter laptop story.
A lot of buyer's remorse out there in the country right now.
And more than 17 platforms muzzled President Trump, sitting as president in the weeks after January 6th.
Twitter has seen a number of suspensions harm conservatives.
So the suspensions on Twitter actually go to a 21 to 1 ratio conservatives to liberals.
21 to 1. Our good friend Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's going to be the guest on the show tomorrow, was kicked off Twitter for championing weight loss as a COVID strategy.
Which, by the way, it totally should be.
Google suppressed conservative websites such as The Daily Caller, Breitbart, The Federalist during the 2020 election season.
The Federalist was even demonetized.
Breitbart saw search visibility decrease by 99% during the 2020 election compared to 2016. Facebook censored Republican members of Congress at a ratio of 53 to 1 compared to Democrats.
In October 2021, leaked Facebook documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal showed that they had tools developed after Trump's 2016 surprise win.
And in their documents, it shows that when those tools were removed, if they were to be removed, Breitbart would see a 20% increase in traffic.
The Washington Times, another right-leaning publication, would see 18% more.
The Western Journal, 16% more.
The Epoch Times, 11% more.
And in fact, one of these tools is still in use today.
Now, Heritage made policy recommendations too.
Additional reporting requirements.
Data privacy, something that's very important.
Imposing costs for big tech and their ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
Prohibiting government from using social platforms to chill speech.
Don't you remember when Jen Psaki was making recommendations to social platforms about what speech they should remove because it wasn't in line with the regime?
Scrutinizing mergers is something very important.
I'm going to be talking about that with my guest.
Resource is for enforcement of our laws.
But at the top of the list, the top of the list for Heritage, Abolish Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as we know it.
Section 230 gives platforms immunities that they weaponize against users.
So Heritage recommends, and I'm quoting directly from the report here, quote, strip immunity if tech companies censor content based on political and other views protected by the Constitution.
Big tech companies should not receive liability protection against lawsuits when they act as publishers and alter or restrict content based on political opinion, association, or viewpoint.
Well, one boomer who does see the grave threat posed by big tech monopolies is Republican Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado.
Ken is a former federal prosecutor.
He is the leading Republican on the Antitrust Subcommittee, and he joins us now.
Ken, thanks so much for being here.
Explain to folks that are watching and listening how they should think about So the key, Matt, really is to understand that for more than 100 years, Congress has not acted or has acted in only a small way in the antitrust area.
We have left it up to the courts to make the decisions, the important decisions in this area.
The bills that we're talking about now, the antitrust bills, have to do with big tech and only big tech.
We're not talking about the airline industry, banks or any other part of the economy.
But because these big tech companies control the flow of information They impact our democracy in a very fundamental way, in a way that we have to address.
And so the bills that we're talking about increase competition.
A lot of my friends talk about...
So respond to sort of the Mike Givens' point that we don't really need bills.
We just need people to unplug from big tech.
I mean, you know, we are right now simulcast streaming on...
Some of these big tech platforms that are pretty evil, like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and the like.
So, I mean, what's your response to people that say, the legislative endeavor is a useless one because we can all just make our own choices on our own digital associations?
Well, I think we need to make our own choices, and I think we need to make moral choices, but that's not enough.
These companies are so big that they crush competition in ways that affect the information flow in this country.
So, I don't believe that we need to go in and break them up.
I don't think government does a very good job of entering the economy and breaking up companies.
But I do think that we need to do everything we can.
Aren't we on a bill to break them up?
Aren't you and I on a bill with Congresswoman Jayapal that quite literally does that?
What it does is it looks at some mergers that occurred before and then unmergers.
So you could say breaking up, absolutely.
But the reality is that the chances of that bill passing and the coalition that was needed to To bring the other bills forward, that bill passed the House Judiciary Committee.
I'm joined by Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado, leading Republican on the House Antitrust Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee.
And we're discussing a package of legislation that we worked very hard on to get through the committee.
And now, as typically occurs, as bills move from subcommittee to full committee and then to the floor, there is a narrowing of focus and really...
Great deal of attention to what we can get done, what we can get put into law.
I'm going to get to that and this legislation that you are really, really putting the fine points on regarding non-discrimination of products with platforms.
But first I want to get your perspective on Section 230 because when conservatives are discussing potential legislative reforms, you often hear folks in the House and Senate really zero in on Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.
As I described, it gives these big tech platforms liability that I think they often use to suppress viewpoint and to try to shape the very nature of truth itself.
What's your perspective on Section 230?
I think that what Heritage said in their white paper is absolutely right.
There are three prongs of attack to deal with this issue.
One is the antitrust laws, the second is Section 230, and the third is a privacy area.
We don't get the job done unless we work on all three areas.
So you believe that reforms to Section 230 are necessary but perhaps not sufficient to get to a digital world that is more reflective of our constitutional values?
Absolutely right.
And the political reality that we're dealing with, Matt, is that we have a president, a Democrat president in the White House, who will not sign a bill that harms the kind of censorship that the Democrats have appreciated in the last few years.
So we've got to move forward on the antitrust laws right now because we do have a bipartisan agreement.
But it's not just the Democrat that's in the White House.
It's often Republicans in Congress Who seem to be the champions of Section 230. I want to play a clip for you.
This is Congresswoman Kathy McMorris-Rogers.
She is the leading Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
This is her perspective on Section 230. I want to be very clear.
I'm not for gutting Section 230. It's essential for consumers and entities in the internet ecosystem.
Misguided and hasty attempts to amend or even repeal Section 230 for bias or other reasons could have unintended consequences for free speech and the ability for small businesses to provide new and innovative services.
That is a position that I don't hold.
I think that strong reforms are necessary.
I think that you correctly in your antitrust work have segregated out how we treat these large platforms versus how we treat some of these smaller companies.
What's your confidence that a Republican majority, which many people expect following the upcoming election, would actually continue the bipartisan work that you and Chairman Cicilline have done on this antitrust legislation?
Well, I think that some of these bills will move forward this Congress.
I think that some of the ideas from these bills will move forward in future Congresses, and I hope that Republicans embrace antitrust.
It is a Republican concept.
It began back in the Gilded Age with leaders like Teddy Roosevelt and others who recognized the dangers of the vast accumulations of wealth and power that go along with these monopolies.
He's a Teddy Roosevelt Republican, and I'm proud to have him here broadcasting live from our congressional office, Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado.
But I do have concerns that Republicans talk tough on Big Tech, but then often end up voting with Big Tech.
I think one reason why is that they're addicted to the money that Big Tech donates to them.
You've taken a bold stance.
What's your perspective on taking funds from Big Tech?
Well, I started a pledge that my good friend Matt Gaetz has joined me with and others that we agree not to take money from Big Tech.
Why is that important?
Well, it's important in large part because of perception.
I don't think that a $2,000 donation changes anybody's vote in this place.
I do think that the public believes that we are bought and sold every day.
And so it's important that we show the public we're not taking money that influences our votes.
And we're also saying to these companies, stay home.
Let us figure this out.
Get out of our face every day on these difficult issues.
Campaign finance system as a matter of policy is one vector where I think people get compromised by big tech, but I think it is a far more sweeping endeavor with the intense lobbying, with big tech hiring family members of lawmakers.
I mean, how are we supposed to go negotiate with Chuck Schumer on an issue that could harm Facebook when his daughter works at Facebook?
And so I'm concerned about that.
I'm also concerned that we've got to get the right people who are willing to be super aggressive, not only on the antitrust matters that we're going to discuss, but also on Section 230. And one thing that concerns me is that Kevin McCarthy has built out a I think we've got the press release that we're going to go to.
It's Cathy McMorris-Rogers.
Now, Jim Jordan's there, too.
We know he's a great warrior for free speech, but I worry that some of the people who haven't taken our pledge, who certainly don't hold my views, are being elevated within the Republican conference on this, and it could result in them stifling our work potentially in a majority.
But you are not waiting.
To get to the majority.
You are working right now on very serious legislation that deals with how big tech platforms can discriminate or not discriminate against products.
Can you give viewers an update on the status of that legislation and why it's needed?
Well, Matt, I just want to back up one second.
I tried to get on that committee.
Well, you tried to get on the Anti-Big Tech Task Force, and you're not on, and Kathy McMorris-Rogers, who's carrying Big Tech's water, who is embracing Section 230, is one of the leaders?
Well, it's interesting, because as the person who was really bringing these antitrust bills forward, I wanted our voice, all of our voices who are in favor of this One remedy, one part of the remedy.
And it's not an antitrust.
It's not an anti-big tech task force.
It's a big tech task force.
It should be an anti-big tech task force.
Heritage essentially concludes that these people are the death star.
We have to shoot everything we have at them from antitrust, from behaviors, from enforcement.
And I think you've laid out a strategy that is multi-vector as well.
It is, but all I'm saying is I approach this with an open mind.
They just convince me every single time that they're bad.
So I'm not looking at this as an anti-big tech task force, but it's so ironic that those of us that have a passion for this area were held off of this task force.
Well, once I saw that Kathy McMorris-Rogers was the leader.
I knew for certain at that point it wasn't going to be an anti-big tech task force.
I mean, frankly, if you take money from big tech, you shouldn't be on the big tech task force.
You've got a conflict.
Absolutely.
So go to your other point.
Yeah, let's go to the legislative.
So that is kind of the free speech vector.
Let's go to the bipartisan legislative vector that you are very hard at work on every day.
So just take one simple bill, for example.
The state attorney generals came to me and said, we want to be able to sue these big companies and stay in our own state.
Because every time they sue, the case miraculously gets moved to the Northern District of California, the backyard of Google and these other companies.
And so we started this bill.
It passed out of a Judiciary Committee.
I've gone to multiple meetings of Republicans and asked people to sign a discharge petition.
I have 107 signatures out of 212 Republicans in the United States House.
When 48 Attorney Generals of the United States come forward, by the way, California is missing for some reason, I don't know why, but when 48 Attorney Generals come forward and say, we need this legislation, And it is a federalist states' rights bill.
Why aren't more Republicans signing up to say, I'll vote for this if it comes to the floor?
Why?
Answer your question.
Do you think it's the lobbying?
Do you think it's the political donations?
Do you think it's a sense of futility for a discharge petition under Nancy Pelosi?
You know what I think?
Matt, that you and I and your other guests on this show are not risk-averse.
I think many people in this chamber are risk-averse.
They don't want to do things.
They won't sign what 48 attorney generals want to be able to not even create new laws, but to be able to bring big tech to heel when they violate state law and engage in...
And other deceptive or potentially unfair trade practices.
And you've got a whole lot of Republicans who you think just aren't up for this fight.
Should that discourage voters that if they returned Republicans to the majority that Republicans would actually fight on big tech?
I think they should absolutely be discouraged.
I think one of the things that voters should ask their candidates...
The discouragement hour with Matt Gaetz and Ken Buck.
Go ahead.
I think you've labeled me that in the past, actually.
I think that one of the things that voters should be asking their candidates, have you taken money from big tech?
It should be not necessarily the dispositive factor in making a decision, but it is a factor in making a decision.
Where are you on big tech?
Have you taken money from them?
Well, the good news is, from that Ohio Senate debate, these questions are being asked.
Now, we're not getting all the right answers yet from all the right candidates, but the questions are being asked.
I want to get to this legislation about how platforms treat products in the non-discrimination issue, because a lot of people might think, oh, well, when I pull up Amazon...
I'm searching to select something.
You know, that is just based on my preferences.
But sometimes it's based on Amazon's preferences and their desire to vertically integrate.
Explain where that legislation is and the work you're doing on it.
So understand that Amazon is a platform.
But they also produce their own products.
And what they do is that from their platform, they look at sales trends and they see products that are selling real well.
Then they go to a manufacturer and produce a similar product and compete against the product that they originally were promoting on their platform.
And when they do that, lo and behold, Amazon takes that competitive third party product and drops it to page three and they put their product on page one.
We discovered this during the investigation that was really led by you and by Chairman Cicilline with Amazon and a diaper company.
I think we've got that clip for viewers.
In 2009, your team viewed diapers.com as Amazon's largest and fastest growing online competitor for diapers.
One of Amazon's top executives said that diapers.com keeps the pressure on pricing on us, and strong competition from diapers.com meant that Amazon would work harder and harder so that customers didn't pick diapers.com over Amazon.
And the customers we're talking about were hardworking families, single parents with babies, and young children.
Now because Diapers.com was so successful, Amazon saw it as a threat.
The documents that we've obtained show that Amazon employees began strategizing about ways to weaken this company.
And in 2010, Amazon hatched a plot to go after Diapers.com and take it out.
In an email that I reviewed, and we've got these up on the slides, one of your top executives proposed to you a, quote, aggressive plan to win, end quote, against diapers.com, a plan that sought to undercut their business by temporarily slashing Amazon prices.
We saw one of your profit and loss statements, and it appears that in one month alone, Amazon was willing to bleed over $200 million in diaper profit losses.
Mr. Bezos, how much money was Amazon ultimately willing to lose on this campaign to undermine diapers.com?
Thank you for the question.
I don't know the direct answer to your question.
This is going back in time, I think, maybe 10 or 11 years or so.
You can give me maybe the dates on those documents.
But what I can tell you is that the idea of using diapers and products like that to attract new customers who have new families is a very traditional idea.
Sure, but let's delve into this a little further.
I'm sorry, you know I only have a few minutes here, so I just want to press on.
Your own documents make clear that the price war against diapers.com worked, and within a few months it was struggling.
And so then Amazon bought it.
After buying your leading competitor here, Amazon cut promotions like amazon.mom and the steep discounts it used to lure customers away from diapers.com and then increase the prices of diapers for new moms and dads.
Mr. Bezos, did you personally sign off on the plan to raise prices after Amazon limited its competition?
I don't remember that at all.
Thank you.
What I remember is that we matched competitive prices, and I believe we followed diapers.com.
Again, this is 11 years ago, so you're asking a lot of my memory.
That was Democrat Congresswoman Mary Kay Scanlon in the House Judiciary Committee with Jeff Bezos under oath.
Ken, does she have it right?
And if so, how does your legislation get at this problem and solve it?
She has it right, and it's even more interesting...
Part of the story that's really important to understand.
Diapers.com, because they had this database of new parents, they were getting into the market of selling baby shampoo and all these other products, and that's what threatened Amazon.
So what Amazon did was to take them out with predatory pricing.
This bill prohibits that kind of predatory pricing and prohibits the self-preferencing that went on with Diapers.com.
We're talking diapers live with Congressman Ken Buck of Colorado, the leading Republican on the House Antitrust Subcommittee.
What is the time frame on being able to get legislation, like what you just described, really before the full House for a vote?
What's beautiful about these bills, Matt, is that they are not only bipartisan, they are bicameral.
And so the Senate is moving in a parallel path with the House.
The Senate has passed the non-discrimination bill also, the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It is now before the full Senate.
We're still finishing the language so that we don't have to go to conference and continue this process.
But I think we are very close to the language that we need to move forward.
Weeks?
Months?
No, weeks.
So in a matter of weeks, you think?
Before the August recess, this bill will pass.
The House of Representatives.
And the Senate.
And be signed by the President.
Bold prediction from the bold Congressman from Colorado.
Before the August recess, we could see a major change in how all Americans interact with the digital world.
And frankly, these platforms should not be able to do what you just saw described there in the diapers matter.
Harm small businesses.
Harm companies that went and acquired customers and built themselves up, but because you've got to sell on Amazon, they go and just strip that data from you and put you out of business.
It's fundamentally unfair.
It is damaging to a variety of sectors throughout our economy.
We need to fix it.
Some Republicans aren't going to vote with us, and they're going to say, Matt, Ken, you shouldn't be working with the Democrats on this.
Maybe when we take power and have leverage and can really dictate terms, we should do it.
But you guys have been romanced by the Democrats on this thing, and you shouldn't be working alongside Elizabeth Warren and David Cicilline and Jerry Nadler, even if your goals are virtuous.
What's your response to that?
Well, they're the same Republicans who are taking money from big tech, number one.
And number two, when you look around the world...
Don't criticize our collegial work alongside Democrats if you're taking money from big tech.
The message from Ken Buck.
India is suing Amazon over this issue.
South Korea, Japan, Europe.
It is an issue that is worldwide, and it's an issue that they're looking for the United States to take leadership on.
And I think that our colleagues just have to understand something.
We don't trust that they're going to do something in the next Congress, and we need to get it done now.
And you have recruited a number of the leading Republican thinkers in the Senate to join us as well.
Talk about that.
Absolutely.
Senator Cruz is on board and other senators from the Judiciary Committee have signed on to this legislation.
It is not liberal legislation.
This is good pro-business, really pro-innovator legislation.
And a lot of those innovations we're seeing really destroyed by those practices that we see used from Amazon, from Facebook and the like.
I don't think...
You should vote against good legislation just because there are also Democrats supporting it.
And frankly, I don't even know what the partisan vectors would be on this.
You know, this is about fairness in the economy.
And frankly, it's encouraging to be working with folks so that the economy actually functions for people who want to play by the rules.
So I'll be with Ken.
We'll take some criticism from the right.
We'll take some criticism from the left, but I think we're building an enduring coalition here that could actually survive this Congress.
We should get done what we can get done now.
We should look ahead to even stronger bills, but maybe there can be some positive connective tissue that merges among the populist right and the populist left that we could see...
Make this place a better place.
You ask about the political vector.
It just so happens that a whole lot of these people are from the left coast that are opposing this legislation, and that's the reality.
We are not going to win the state of California, probably, on the vote, but he's predicted the law will change before the August recess.
Another thing that needs to change is just Congress generally.
We made a movie about this.
Cameras followed Ken Buck and I during all of calendar year 2019. HBO made a movie called The Swamp.
Take a quick look.
Where has McConnell traditionally been on these war powers issues?
I think the best guess of where he's gonna be on this issue is where the president wants him to be on this issue.
And the president sees this as an important part of his rebuilding the military, and he's not gonna send the signal to Mitch McConnell to work with us on this.
Huh.
Oh, what a profile shot.
It got the whole jawline.
I mean, you got to have the ace cinematographers for that.
So the book that you wrote was Drain the Swamp.
From that, we were able to make this great movie called The Swamp on HBO. But why did you write the book and what is your principal critique of Congress?
Well, I'll tell you why I wrote the book.
I was so disappointed in my freshman term in Congress.
I came here believing that I could make a difference in this country for the better.
We are spending too much money.
We're regulating our economy in ways that are really detrimental.
I wrote the book and people said, no, that can't be true.
We have to pay money to be on a committee.
Nobody believes that you have to pay money to be on a committee.
You have to pay more than a million dollars to be a chair.
I had to pay $75,000 to get on the Armed Services Committee.
It's absolutely corrupt because how do most people make their money?
They hold receptions.
Lobbyists come to the receptions.
The lobbyists expect something in return.
It's a game that's played.
And you just become the money launderer between the special interests and the leadership.
That's what I really resented.
You know, when I showed up and I thought, so wait a second, I'm going to owe, like, they told me during the course of my freshman term, I owe them $400,000 over that two-year period.
I think to myself, where do they expect that I'm going to get it?
And then the committee chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time sits me down and says, well, you've got to find this special interest and play them against that special interest, and then their common ground can be your bank account.
And it just struck me as so icky.
So you write the book.
Do you think that...
That the sort of sleaziness of the exchange of favors for money, on legislation, on taking positions on things here, is getting worse or better since you published.
Well, I don't think the book helped.
It hurt me.
I don't think it helped the system, but I think it continues to get worse.
Every year I look at it, and you just look at the numbers that the NRCC and the DCCC are raising, and that number keeps going up, and that number is coming from somewhere, and it's from the members having to go out and raise that money.
It's been an inordinate amount of time raising money as opposed to developing good policy.
Well, let me push back on that a little.
I think that there are some elements getting better.
You would have never heard of any group rejecting money from almost anyone five, six, ten years ago in this place.
Everybody took money from everybody.
And you not only have refused money from big tech, but folks like Congressman Stubbe and others have joined in that effort.
I take no donations from any lobbyists or any political action committees.
Marjorie Taylor Greene does not take any donations from corporate PACs.
I don't believe Lauren Boebert takes donations from corporate PACs.
And you wonder like, well, how have we been able to do that?
And the answer is by democratizing sort of the policy of political finance across more people.
I think the small dollar donor has never meant more than they do today, because if you get enough of them, you don't have to go beg lobbyists for money.
And so, you know, again, this isn't a campaign show, but it does speak to the types of policies in the Congress that get attention and get a focus and get placed on committee agendas based on who's given money where.
And I mean, you've been very transparent about that.
We made the movie about it.
And when you say you don't think it helped you, what did you mean by that?
Well, I don't think leadership appreciated me pulling back the curtain and showing America exactly what goes on here.
But I think the point that you make is absolutely right.
Send the right people to Congress.
It isn't a matter of what the system is now.
It's a matter of what the system could become when the right people show up and work hard.
Colorado sent a good one.
Ken Buck.
Ken, before I let you go, folks continue to be just horrified by these images of mass murder and atrocity in Ukraine.
What's your perspective on how that conflict is going and what we've learned from it?
Well, one thing we've learned is that the Ukrainian people love their country and are willing to die for it.
Their military is putting up a tremendous fight against far superior military force.
The other thing that we've learned is that the corruption that's inherent And a communist system is playing out in the military.
And I also think that our policies have been detrimental.
We need to stop buying oil gas from Russia.
We need to make sure that we isolate Russia.
We need to make sure that Europe understands that they need to ante up their portion.
You guys have got some more oil and gas we can go find in Colorado, right?
We have.
Because I don't want to trade blood-stained Russian oil for blood-stained Iranian oil or blood-stained Venezuelan oil.
Absolutely.
And that's one of the Disgraces that's occurred with our energy policy here.
Matt, when our former governor left office, the state government was granting 30 oil and gas permits a month.
The new governor takes over in his first year, five total.
And now they're wondering why we have a gas shortage.
It's clear.
They have been attacking fossil fuels for decades in this country.
And now the chickens have come home to roost.
And it does sound like Colorado's ready to make its patriotic contribution to America's energy needs, if given the opportunity.
Ken, how can folks find you on social media?
How can folks stay in contact with you, sign up for your newsletter, so that we're able to stay real informed on this important antitrust big tech legislation?
I appreciate that.
They could go to buck.house.gov.
We send out an email whenever I have a big vote in the House, but especially when we're dealing with these antitrust bills.
Buck.house.gov.
My good friend from Colorado, leading Republican on the House Antitrust Subcommittee.
Thanks so much for joining us.
▲
Export Selection