Tyler Grimm

Tyler Grimm is Chief Counsel for Policy and Strategy for the House Judiciary Committee majority staff. We address intellectual property legislation and how the sausage is made. This is an insider's view into what really goes on in Congress.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome, Welcome, Welcome back to the Bob Left Set podcasts.
My guest today is Tyler Grimm, who's chief counsel for
Policy and Strategy at the Judiciary Committee of the US
House of Representatives.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Tyler, you went to see Roger Daltrey last night? How
was he?

Speaker 3 (00:27):
It was awesome for being eighty years old. He really
brought it. I gotta say it was kind of f
I've probably seen The Who a dozen times in my life,
never saw Adultrey alone. He was great. He could tell
he really wanted to swing the microphone, but eighty that
just wasn't happening. He did bring it out for the encore.

(00:49):
We got a couple couple of Mike throws. He was awesome.
You know, he's got Pete Townsend's brother Simon up there
with him. He seems to be really happy doing his
own thing. He you know, played some covers, played mostly
Whose songs, played a couple of his original songs. It

(01:10):
was great.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Okay, you're a relatively young guy. How do you become
a fan of the Who?

Speaker 3 (01:19):
I grew up on the Who. My parents were really
into music. We started going to concerts when I was
like five years old. That's basically like what we did
when we grew up. We didn't go to a lot
of sports games. We went to concerts. I would look
and see what concerts were coming to town, beg my
parents to take me. I think my first concert was

(01:42):
Elton John and Billy Joel and the second one was
Tom Petty h And I was just addicted to live
music from a really young age. My household was it
was the Stones, it was the Who, primarily the Who
you know later Pearl Jam, but it was a rock
and roll house.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
How about acts that are of a newer vintage? Are
you a fan of those?

Speaker 3 (02:07):
Definitely? I do. Like I really love Pearl Jam's new album.
I think I think, uh it's there, it's their best
piece of work in years. Really like I like Gaslight
Ants them a lot. I like Camp a lot. I
saw Zach Bryan earlier this year. He was awesome newer music,

(02:28):
sort of of the rock variety. But I listen to anything.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
Okay, So I'm the Judiciary Committee. How much can you
talk music with? And are the members fans of music?

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Uh, there's a lot of music fans on the Judiciary Committee, Actually, Bob,
it is you know, to set the stage here like
music and movies. We are the primary committee for the
entertainment industry. Anything copyright, any IP, anything anti trust comes
through the committee. And we have some members that, you know,

(03:07):
I'm not sure listen to all that much music. Other
members that play instruments, that are in bands. We've got
a member, Kelly Armstrong, who will be the next governor
of North Dakota. I went to the Zach Bryan concert
with him. Earlier this year. We saw Tyler Childers together.
He loves Camp. That's another new band I love, sort

(03:30):
of great musical taste. There's a lot of music talk
on the committee.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
How old is Keller?

Speaker 3 (03:37):
Oh, I'm reluctant to guess, but I'd say I give
him the benefit of the doubt and say early forties.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
Okay, So if we start talking about copyright issues the
Judiciary Committee, are they pretty familiar with these things or
do you have to brief them and bring them up
to speed.

Speaker 3 (03:59):
You've got brief them, right, I mean, you've got a
brief members on any issue, and it varies member to members.
Some people are super familiar. They've been doing this for
a quarter century or more. They've seen a number of
laws passed, very familiar with the issues and the players
and what's going on. Others are totally new to this

(04:19):
but want to learn. You've got some that aren't there
to do copyright, aren't there to do music issues, and
you know, they want to understand it for that day
and then you know, maybe move on to the next thing.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
So not everybody's educated, certainly outside America about the ins
and outs of the government. What exactly is the Judiciary Committee?

Speaker 3 (04:43):
Sure, so we've obviously got the Congress, which is comprised
of the House and the Senate. In the House, all
the work that's done to get a bill to the
floor before it becomes law is really done at committees,
and the committee's di eied off work by topic area.
And so we've got all intellectual property at the Judiciary Committee.

(05:08):
So if you're going to write a bill that has
to do with patents or trademarks or copyrights, it will
come before the committee. The committee will have what we
call a markup where we'll consider bills, try to amend them,
debate them, and then vote on them. If a bill
is successfully voted out of the committee, that's sort of

(05:32):
primed for floor action, and the floor could take up
the bill, and then you see what the Senate does
and see if the President will sign it.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
Okay, let's start at the ground floor. There's a Judiciary
Committee in the House. Is there an equivalent committee in
the Senate?

Speaker 3 (05:49):
There is Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and they both
have sort of subcommittees more dedicated to specific issue areas.
So there's an intellectual property subcommittee in both the House
and the Senate, and that's where a lot of this
work will get done.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Okay. So let's say I'm someone who wants a passage
of a bill. Where do I start with the House
or the Senate. Does it make any.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
Difference, doesn't make a lot of doesn't make a lot
of difference. There are some exceptions, some kinds of bills
have to originate in the House, but in this case,
by and large, either chamber a bill could start it.
So let's say that you're someone who sees some problem

(06:37):
in the music royalty space and you think there needs
to be a fixed You probably call your member, ideally
a member of the Judiciary committee, pitch them on the issue,
try and get them to write a bill. They'd write
a bill, it would get introduced into the House, it
would get referred to the Judiciary Committee, and then the

(06:59):
Judiciary Committee could take up that bill, and the rest
of that process would play out.

Speaker 2 (07:05):
Okay, so we hear about the House and the Senate
having different bills and then needing to come up with one.
How does that work?

Speaker 3 (07:19):
Yeah, so this happens all the time. Usually, you know,
let's say bill gets all the way through in the House,
passes on the floor, everybody's happy. A bill that's slightly
different makes it all the way through the Senate more
often than not. As a House guy, I'm sad to

(07:41):
say the House will take up the Senate bill. Sometimes
the Senate takes up the House bill, and then whichever
one passes both chambers will get sent to the President
to be signed it to law.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Okay, so let's assume I'm oblivious and I want to
introduce a bill. I want to get something done. In
terms of the House, welir Senate, they're essentially equal, and
it's more of who I know to get started. What
would motivate me to go to one chamber or the other?

Speaker 3 (08:09):
I'd say, it's really it's who you know, who you
think is going to champion the issue, who has a
history of working on these issues. Maybe who has seniority,
who's got more clout, and one of the chambers, who's
closer to leadership that would put the bill on the floor.
All of that, someone's going to be a good advocate
for you.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
Really. Okay, you talked about copyright. The Judiciary Committee in
the House, which is where you work. What other issues
do they address? What other subcommittees? What is the whole
of the Judiciary Committee.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
That's a great question, Bob. So you've got intellectual property there,
so all the things I mentioned. You've got the whole
court system the federal judiciary. You've got antitrust, so anti
trust at the FTC and and you've got immigration, You've

(09:03):
got crime, you've got First Amendment issues. It is a
large array of issues at Judiciary.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Okay, just you know, to paint the picture. There's the
Judiciary Committee. What are some of the other committees the
House has?

Speaker 3 (09:21):
Sure, So there's the Budget Committee. Obviously they're writing the budget.
You've got the Energy and Commerce Committee. You know, they're
dealing with healthcare and energy and sort of a lot
of economy wide issues. You've got the Ways and Means Committee,
which is dealing with taxes, You've got the Science Committee,

(09:42):
which is dealing with all sorts of science issues, including
like NASA. You've got the Veterans Affairs Committee. I think
there are you know, eighteen ish committees on Capitol Hill.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
And if you're in one committee, are you in that
committee only? Or could you be in multiple committees?

Speaker 3 (10:01):
So there are some committees which we call a committees,
and those are sort of exclusive, most notably like A
Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and more often
than not, if you're on that committee, you're only on
that committee and you're not serving on other committees. But
other than that, you could be on two, three, four committees.

(10:22):
They keep them busy.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Okay, how many people are on the Judiciary Committee?

Speaker 3 (10:27):
It's about forty two.

Speaker 2 (10:29):
And how do they decide who's on the committee?

Speaker 3 (10:33):
Uh, there's something called the Steering Committee, and the Steering
Committee basically gets together and they assign members uh, the
various committees based on member interest in where there are vacancies.
But typically, once you're on a committee as a member
of Congress, you stay there. You're not going to kick
you off unless you move up to an a committee

(10:55):
or you you know, try to move over to some
other committee. I think they really value the institutional knowledge
that builds up. We're talking about copy right. You know,
if you were there for a bunch of these fights,
you've sort of seen how it all plays out. You
can use that knowledge in the future. There's a premium
people put on that, so you know, we like when

(11:15):
people stick around.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
Okay, Obviously the constituency of the House changes every two years,
So how would that affect the makeup of the committee.

Speaker 3 (11:27):
Sure, so, Uh, you know, if a member loses or
resigns or isn't there anymore, Uh, they won't be on
the committee. That's lot'll have to be filled.

Speaker 2 (11:40):
Well, let's say, you know, we have an election and
let's just say they're four hundred and fifty eight members
of Congress.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
Is that a correct on a good day? A good day,
We've got.

Speaker 2 (11:53):
Leave about the bulls, like I got to go back
to school. I don't know what you know, especially with
Nate Silver with the exact numbers four fifty ye, I
don't know where I got that from. But let's say hypothetically,
it's you know, two seventeen to eighteen, and then there's
an election and one party ends up with one hundred
and the other one ends up with three hundred plus.

(12:15):
Can't believe I got the number of representatives wrong? People
to kill me. Would that effect the percentage of one
party or the other party and making up the Judiciary Committee?

Speaker 3 (12:28):
Not necessarily, I've I think it's been quite some time
since we've had a disparity that big. You know, typically
the ratios remain about the same, you know, no matter
who's in charge. There's so many Republicans, so many Democrats
on the committee. In the Senate, it is proportional. The

(12:49):
Senate's a whole other animal. The Senate's sort of like
the Committee's laws are allocated proportional to who controls the chamber.

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Okay, So you're saying on the Judicial Eury Committee, essentially
half are Democrats and half Republicans.

Speaker 3 (13:04):
Well, no, there's a who's ever in the majority has
a majority of the committee slots also, but the ratio
between them basically stays the same.

Speaker 2 (13:13):
It defined ratio in this case.

Speaker 3 (13:17):
So if there are you know, twenty five Republicans on
the committee and seventeen Democrats, it would that that would flip.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
You mean, if the other party took control in the
same numbers exactly exactly, Okay, So let's say, you know,
I'm a member of the Juiciary Committee and my party
does poorly in the next election, will I lose my seat?

Speaker 3 (13:49):
You could? You could if you know you're a newer
member of the committee and the ratio gets cut to
the point where like they've got to eliminate. It's some
slots you could lose your seat on the committee.

Speaker 2 (14:02):
And who is chairperson in the committee?

Speaker 3 (14:05):
The chair right now is Jim Jordan from Ohio, and
the ranking members Jerry Nadler from New York.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
And how do they pick those That's.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Picked by the steering committee. Also in the it's a
little different on the the Democrats have a different process.
It's sort of the whole caucus desize. The Republican side,
there is a steering committee process and they sort of
vote on who's going to be chair. Once you're chair,
you've got the job for six years. If you're a Republican.

(14:38):
Democrats do it a little differently. You can kind of
be chair in perpetuity.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
So the steering committee. Each party has the equivalent thereof
that's right, that's right, okay, And whoever has the majority
gets to decide the chairperson.

Speaker 3 (15:01):
Yeah, you get to decide your relative leadership on the committee.
So if you're in the minority, you would choose the
ranking member, you know, the top person on the committee
for the minority, and if you're in the majority, you
choose the chairperson, top person on there for the majority.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
As a practical matter, what does it mean if you
were the party that is in control and you're the
chairperson as opposed to the opposing party.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
Bob, it means everything. Really, the House is a majoritarian institution,
and so when you're in control, you set the agenda,
you decide what bills move, what bills don't move.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
Okay, I'm trying to rationalize how they came up with
four fifty eight maybe five thirty eight and eight silver.
You know, I made a mistake there, it is I
have to own it. Not going to cut it. So,
if you are on the Judiciary Committee, might you be
on multiple subcommittee?

Speaker 3 (16:00):
Yes, you definitely are. You're probably on at least two,
maybe three.

Speaker 2 (16:06):
Okay, So there is a specific subcommittee for intellectual there is,
and what would be the breadth what would be some
of the issues that would be addressed in that subcommittee?

Speaker 3 (16:19):
So it's it, And to be clear, it's intellectual property
and the courts and the Internet. Those are the three
sort of categories of topics under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. So,
you know, we've had a bunch of hearings this year
on AI and copyright. We've had hearings on other sort
of music royalty issues. There is a hearing just yesterday

(16:45):
on third party litigation funding. We've had hearings on patentability
and patentability related to AI. It really runs the gamut
of all the all the AI, all the all the
IP issues.

Speaker 2 (17:00):
Rather, what's the third pretty litigation funding? What is that?

Speaker 3 (17:06):
So this is the There are a bunch of lawsuits
where we'll say one company sues another and the accusation
is that, you know, the company doing the suing has
a third party backer. We'll say, someone with a you know,

(17:28):
financial stake and the outcome of the case and that party,
that sort of third party might not be known to
the public or to the court. And so there's a
movement of foot to get transparency so people know who's suing,
what their motivations are, who's sort of backing the lawsuit.

Speaker 2 (17:49):
Okay, as we speak, there's a big brew haha with Spotify,
which now has more than music has books and they're
bundling and they want to reduce rate. Is this something
a that the Justice Committee might address? B Is it
something you're already hearing about.

Speaker 3 (18:06):
It's definitely something we're hearing about. You know.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
It is.

Speaker 3 (18:12):
The music publishers very upset about the situation. You know,
they think that Spotify is is exploiting a loophole an
agreement that they made in twenty twenty two. Spotify basically
contends that you know, everybody signed off on this, that

(18:33):
the publishers are you know, in fact, making more money
a year over year and they shouldn't have anything to
complain about that. It was I think totally foreseeable that
they'd introduced audiobooks onto the platform.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
So okay, that's the issue. To what degree is something
happening on the issue Justice Committee now?

Speaker 3 (18:55):
So the committee you hear when when these issues happen,
there are a lot of sort of funny thing about
the music space. A lot of this happens between those parties.
You know, they might they're yelling at each other, trying
to figure out some settlement, they might sue each other,
but at the same time they're keeping the Committee apprized

(19:17):
of this. They might get members of Congress to send
letters complaining in one direction or the other. But for
right now, the issue is kind of new. I haven't
heard of anyone, you know, doing anything in particular about
these complaints. I know that we're monitoring it, though, and

(19:39):
we'll kind of we'll see what happens.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
Okay. When you say getting someone to write a letter,
you mean a member writing a letter to the Judiciary Committee.

Speaker 3 (19:50):
No, I mean a member of the Judiciary Committee or
even a member off of the committee. This is a
really common practice. You know, one maybe maybe the songwriters,
maybe the publishers, may be you know, somebody else interested
in this will say, hey, you know, ex member, I'm

(20:10):
really upset about this. I think this is a great injustice,
or I think that, you know, the songwriters are wrong
to be upset about this. Send a letter to the
other party asking questions and sort of raise the issue,
and that kind of telegraph to the parties the Congress
is paying attention. Maybe there will be a hearing, Maybe
this will get elevated. It's kind of more often than

(20:33):
not to put people back on their heels.

Speaker 2 (20:37):
So what does it take to have a hearing?

Speaker 3 (20:41):
Well, so at the IP Subcommittee, which is shaired right
now by darryl Isa from California and the ranking members
Hanna Johnson in Georgia, they do most things on a
bipartisan basis, and they'll sort of agree we're gonna have
a hearing, but it's really it's up to him. He'll say,
you know, next week, I'm going to have a hearing

(21:01):
on you know, patentability of AI generated you know, inventions,
and it'll basically happen. The staff will identify witnesses that
can talk about these things, will convene a panel, they'll
get sworn in, we'll have a hearing. It'll last about
two hours. Members will ask questions, and that's kind of

(21:22):
the ballgame.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
Okay, so right now, the Republicans have the majority, so
ISA can call or not call a hearing. Can a Democrat,
who is the minority right now, call a hearing? No?

Speaker 3 (21:37):
They can't. Okay, there's like a there's a funky exception
to that that I won't bore you with, but generally speaking, no,
they you know, they can't call a hearing. They're sort
of relying on on the majority to call a hearing.
But you know, I think the majority of hearings that

(21:57):
mister reis Is proposed have been by part of and
just giving the given the nature of the subcommittee.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Okay, so it's not really usually a combative process. One
party wants it and one party doesn't.

Speaker 3 (22:10):
No, not in this space. So that's not how these
issues break down. It's not really like a red versus
blue thing. There's you know, other things going on that
sort of divide members.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Okay, so let's just use, for an example, the music industry.
I gotta bug up my rear end and for whatever
channel I reach, ISA, what's it going to take to
actually have a hearing where you might say, hey, all
this stuff is in evidence, I don't need a hearing.

Speaker 3 (22:38):
He's got to be convinced that it's it's sort of
worth gathering the members of the committee and hearing testimony
on this. Sometimes it's we might consider more often than not,
it's like we're going to consider legislation on this topic.
So we need to get a better understanding. We have
to build a legislative record of testimony in support or
against a bill. But you know, it's up to him

(22:59):
if you came in and how persuasive meeting and he
to call a.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Hearing, okay, And why the two hour limit.

Speaker 3 (23:07):
There's no two hour limit. I'm just that's an approximate
time for about the length of the subcommittee hearing.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
So let's assume we schedule a hearing. Does everybody on
the subcommittee show up?

Speaker 3 (23:19):
They make their best effort to show up. As you noted,
members are on multiple committees, so they're very busy. Most
people try and come for at least part of it.
You know, some hearings you'll have everyone there the whole time.
Other times, you know, attendance can be lower than that.

Speaker 2 (23:38):
Let's assume we have a hearing. How do we apportion
time amongst the members who are in attendance.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
You've got five minutes to ask questions?

Speaker 2 (23:53):
And can you ever can da all? Isus in charge? Now?
Can he ever say? Well, you know, you're on a
good thread. You got a few more minutes.

Speaker 3 (24:00):
Not really, that's very frowned upon and not allowed for
in the rules. You can do anything by what's called
unanimous consent. Really, you could say, you know, like if
nobody objects, they could give whoever, you know, some extra time,
allow the witness to answer more questions. They could also
do a second round where they'll go around and everybody
gets five minutes again.

Speaker 2 (24:22):
And what if for some reason, because I'm spacing out,
or is it another sub committee, I get my five
minutes and I asked questions if somebody already asked, let's.

Speaker 3 (24:33):
See, I think you hope nobody notices.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
Probably, Okay, so let's soon we're going to have a hearing.
How many people might testify? And how do you decide
who actually is testified?

Speaker 3 (24:47):
Got four people testify? The staff will reach out to
a bunch of witnesses, the people they think could be witnesses,
sort of feel them out, get a sense of their expertise,
and then you know, if it makes sense to have
them there and they're available, they'll they'll show up. So
it's only four, No, No, it could be as many

(25:09):
as as many as as the chair wants to have. Really,
sometimes there are multiple panels. You know, you might have
a panel of government witnesses and then a panel of
expert witnesses. Sometimes it's one, you know, when we have
like the copyright register up, it's usually just her testifying.

(25:36):
So it really depends.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
Okay, Now we see hearings and we see someone make
a statement before questions do I get the right to
make a statement. When do I get to make a
statement as opposed to just answer questions?

Speaker 3 (25:56):
You get to make a statement at the very beginning.
You have five minutes to make a statement.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
Okay, let's assume I'm testifying. To what degree are these
people prepared? And to what deg we should they prepare?

Speaker 3 (26:15):
If you're a witness testifying before the committee, I would
say you spend a ton of time preparing because you
never know you're under oath. Uh, it's recorded, it's there
for all time, it's in the congressional record. You know,
people usually do what's called a murder board will. They'll

(26:36):
sit down, have lawyers with them, you know, run through
questions they might be asked and how they're going to
answer them. That's almost certainly the case for any sort
of high stakes testimony. You know, if if you're a
subject matter expert and you know the material cold, you
might not prepare that much. I mean you might. You

(26:57):
might do this all the time. There are a lot
of people that testif fight pretty regularly and just kind
of ready for the job.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
Okay. From an outside position, it seems that some of
these hearings are grandstanding there's an issue that's in the
news and they have a hearing and we see some
reports and then doesn't seem like anything happened.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
Sure, I think that happens quite a bit. You know,
when you say nothing happens, there are There are really
two purposes to a hearing, right You've got a like
a legislative hearing, or like an issue intensive hearing about
like AI and copyright for instance, That's not going to

(27:46):
be on the front page of the paper. Most people
aren't going to hear about it unless you're you know,
unless you're really into this stuff. But if the Attorney
general's testifying or you know, some se EO is testifying
about some oil spill or something, the purpose of that
isn't necessarily like, oh, we're always going to we have

(28:11):
a bill in mind that we're going to move. It
is you know, Congress has a rule as an oversight function, right,
and so it's sort of looking out to these issues
to see if potentially we need to get involved or
we need to do something, we need to consider legislative action.
That isn't always the case. Most of the cabinet secretaries

(28:32):
had it's customary for them to come up you know
once a year and testify. I think a lot of
what you're talking about happens at those hearings.

Speaker 2 (28:41):
Okay, so but let's assume you know it's an issue
that is going to have to be decided or you
want to have decided. You have the hearing, Then what
might happen to move forward towards legislation.

Speaker 3 (28:57):
You have the hearing that gives you the ability to
know where the members are, what they're thinking. You hear
from the witnesses about potential problems with the bills, different
ways to write whatever bills you're considering on that topic,
sort of go back process all that information, and then

(29:17):
you'd probably consider putting one of those bills on the
markup agenda and marking it up marketing and by marking
it up, sorry I mean, I mean you sort of
bring it before the committee, You debate the bill, you
amend the bill, and then you sort of vote on
it and decide whether or not it will leave the

(29:39):
committee and go to the floor.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
And that could take on one end. It never happens.
Never introduce how fast or how slow can this process
be marking up the bill?

Speaker 3 (29:53):
So as fast as we could notice the markup where
I think it's three business from now, have the mark
up on the bill and send it to the floor,
and it could be on the floor the next day,
or you know, after a bill reports filed, so that
that could all happen very quickly. Or you could mark

(30:14):
up a bill that you send to the floor and
it never sees action on the floor. Or you could
introduce a bill and it never gets marked up.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
Okay, who writes the bill?

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Well, bills are always authored by members of Congress. You know,
it's whatever member's name is on the bill. That's that's
who introduced the bill, So they've written the bill.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
We hear about lobbyists writing the actual language. Is that
a possibility?

Speaker 3 (30:51):
I don't think is it a possibility. Lobbyists certainly like
make the case for how some length would you want
to build might look like At the end of the day,
these are people who have an interest in the outcome
of a thing, and they know about their industry and
they don't want you to overlook something, and so they

(31:13):
might play some role in, you know, advising on how
something's written. But members have to consent to you know,
that language. Usually you take sort of an idea the
way it works is you would take an idea that
you have and you would work with a group we
have called Legislative Council. There's a bunch of experts there

(31:35):
that will sort of know how to how to draft
the bills so that it, you know, can change the
law in a way that the courts will interpret the
way that you want them to.

Speaker 2 (31:45):
So what's your job?

Speaker 3 (31:49):
So I basically oversee policy for the Judiciary Committee. That
means advising members on what bills we're going to move,
helping to play a role and you know, talking to
people about why bill is good, why it's bad, if

(32:10):
it achieves what they want to achieve, what the outcome
will be, the likelihood of success for the bill you know,
on the floor or going into law. All that it's
sort of being, you know, is staff at the committee.
Our Our main role is advising members and helping guide

(32:30):
guide the legislative agenda.

Speaker 2 (32:33):
So you it's not only IP you advise on everything
the Judiciary Committee does.

Speaker 3 (32:40):
I advise on Yes, for the most part, We've got
you know, sort of underneath me at the committee there
are other subject matter experts on all these things. And
you know, I would say that I spend a lot
of my time in the antitrust and IP space. That's
where I spend most of my time.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Okay, So in this department, who do you report to?

Speaker 3 (33:06):
Miss it? Everybody that works for the committee reports to
the chair. Okay, so I worked for all the members
of the committee, but we report to the chair.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
Okay, So you're the you're the head guy in policy.

Speaker 3 (33:17):
I think that's that's fair.

Speaker 2 (33:20):
And you're an attorney. How many attorneys work for you?

Speaker 3 (33:25):
There are on staff about one hundred attorneys. I'm reluctant
to say that these people work for me, but work
with me. You know, eighty ish.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
People, and are they all attorneys?

Speaker 3 (33:40):
The vast majority of them are attorneys?

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Yeah? Okay, So let's go back to something you brought up, Ai.
So I remember, back when you were a little kid,
they had hearings on Napster and ultimately the issue was
decided by courts that Master was copyright infringement based on

(34:04):
a centralized database. Then we had Khazah, Then we had lockers,
and then we had Daniel Leck came up with a
good model for streaming, and the rest is history. If
I'm in tech, should I be looking for a legislative solution?
Or do I say, A, these issues are going to

(34:24):
work out anyway, or I should find a business solution.

Speaker 3 (34:30):
When it comes to AI, it's it's kind of like a.
I think the issue is multi dimensional and it depends
what problem you're trying to solve for right, there are
definitely some people in tech that are saying you need
to regulate AI. Some of those people are incumbent players

(34:50):
who sort of are in at the ground floor at AI,
and there's concern that the regulations that they want might help,
you know, of protect their incumbency there there. You know,
if we're talking about music and AI, I think it's
a it's a different conversation. You know, you've got sort

(35:13):
of the Copyright Office who's looking at these issues and
there I think soon going to put out some recommendations
about how they're thinking about AI. You've got the course
looking at this in terms of what is fair use,
what is not fair use, and you know AI training
models and how that will work, you know. And then

(35:34):
I think you've got Congress taking up questions related to
protecting voice and likeness and to some extent like record
keeping and transparency. You know, these are all issues that
are that are hot right now. I don't think that

(35:54):
the situation we're in today is unlike you know what
happened in nineteen ninety nine with Napster. We I've been
working on music issues for almost a decade now on
on Capitol Hill, and uh, it went from a year

(36:16):
ago I would hear about AI every couple of months
or someone would want to come talk about it. This year,
it feels like every day people want to come talk
about AI. I think people are people are really concerned
and they want to get in front of this. I
think that they don't want a second Napster situation to unfold.

Speaker 2 (36:38):
Okay, so you say you've been working on music issues
for ten years. What are some of the music issues
or what are the music issues you're working on.

Speaker 3 (36:47):
Well, in the last ten years, the biggest thing was
definitely the Music Monetization Act that we got signed in
a lot in twenty eighteen. You know, you get like
once in a generation, you get a big piece of
copyright legislation like the Music Monerornization Act, and so that

(37:10):
was something that was almost you know, a decade and
a half in the making. Really, the issues that led
to that came from streaming that that was just a
massive accomplishment that I think brought everyone together. We passed
it out of the House unanimously, went out of the
Senate unanimously. That was a product of years of hard

(37:32):
work by a lot of people. Today, the issues, it's
like AI and people just trying to figure out what
to do. A lot of these questions are novel. People
are confused, people are scared, they're they're looking for some
certainty and to see if Congress is going to do something.

Speaker 2 (37:51):
Music Modernization Act, how'd you get that over the finish line.

Speaker 3 (37:58):
Well, these issues we're talking that was the the centerpiece
of that bill was fixing the mechanical license process, you know,
and this is this is something that I'm sure most

(38:19):
of your listeners know, but you know the mechanical license
goes back to the piano role. Right. We created this
in nineteen oh nine after you know, sheet music was
the only way you sold music in America, right, sold
sheet music. And that's how you know songwriters, publishers paid money.

(38:40):
Someone who vents the piano roll wax cylinder case goes
up to the Supreme Court and the chord is basically
like this is not a musical work, you know, this
isn't cheap music. We can't, we won't grant protection to this.
So Congress steps in and they say they create a
protection for a mechanical work, like a reproduction, you know,

(39:02):
a mechanical reproduction of the musical work. It works out,
you know, I think there was like a two cent
rate in place at the beginning. This stays in place,
I think until nineteen seventy six. They increased it a
little bit, but the mechanical royalty wasn't something people talked about.

(39:23):
There's talk of even getting rid of it at some point,
and then in the streaming era it becomes a massive problem.
You know, back in two thousand and four, people were
talking about all the issues that would they would come
of the problems with the mechanical because what was what

(39:43):
happens is or what did happen? Pre mma was if
you wanted to mechanically and that's sort of an outdated term,
even though you know it's not piano rules anymore, reproduce
the work. You basically told the copyright office you were
going to do this, and you you know, you paid
for that, the right to reproduce it. Well with streaming,

(40:06):
all of the streams and all of the songs. It's
just this massive deluge of streaming led to these notices
of intent flooding the Copyright Office. They couldn't keep up.
People weren't getting paid.

Speaker 2 (40:23):
It was.

Speaker 3 (40:23):
It was a real mess, and it stayed that way
for quite some time until twenty eighteen when we passed
the Music Monetization Act, which created like a single entity,
the Music Licensing Collective, which essentially deals with all these
deals with all these issues.

Speaker 2 (40:40):
Now, okay, we talk about the Copyright Department setting rates
and increases. How does that work?

Speaker 3 (40:51):
So the Copyright Office has a three judge panel called
the Copyright Royalty Board or the CRB. They're charged with
sort of taking into account all evidence, figuring out rates
for certain proceedings, basically finding agreement among parties after they

(41:12):
make their case. That is the process we were talking
about with Spotify. That was a twenty twenty two agreement.
I think it was Phono Records for I think is
the name of that proceeding where you know they came
to this agreement that now is obviously back in the

(41:33):
news as a problem.

Speaker 2 (41:36):
Okay, let's switch gears. You say you also have oversight
into antitrust. We have this dog case against Live Nation
and its Ticketmaster subsidiary. To what degree is Congress involved
in that?

Speaker 3 (41:54):
It's the situation Congress is monitoring. There's a lot of
interest in what happened Ticketmaster, what happened with Taylor Swift.
But DOJ is basically suing Ticketmaster under existing law. So
that's not something that they'll be able to talk about

(42:14):
publicly or really come testify about until the case is settled.
Something people have a lot of interest in. People are
saying good things, are bad things about it, But we
don't have a lot of interest in like that suit
in particular. Congress is legislating, I would say, around other
issues in that space. It was just a couple of

(42:37):
weeks ago we passed something called the Ticket Act, which
basically provides for all in ticket pricing, so you know,
all the fees and everything is the price you see.
The price you see is the price you get. That
passed the House, you know, I think it likely will
pass the Senate, but it hasn't yet.

Speaker 2 (42:57):
What will it take to pass the Senate.

Speaker 3 (43:00):
I think they're working out some disagreements. There's a there's
a Ticket Fairness Act, which is different than the Ticket Act.
You know, there are issues related to like filthy URLs
and speculative ticketing, and I think people want those added,
and so that's part of the process, is figuring out

(43:23):
like what we'll make it into the final bill that
the Senate passes. I think, like we talked about earlier,
they'll pass something. It'll probably be a little different than
what passed the House, and it'll come back to us.
But that that bill passed that, I don't know if
there was any opposition to it. It was like four
hundred and sum, you know, to a very small number

(43:43):
of people.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
So on many issues, and ticketing being one of them,
they're opposing views. How does the committee deal with those
opposing views? And how do I try to get my
side across as opposed to the other side.

Speaker 3 (44:03):
We deal with them by providing a forum for people
to argue and debate and try to convince their colleagues
that they're right and their colleague is wrong, or vice versa.
I think if you want your side to prevail, you
probably come with better arguments, So you spend time with
your colleagues convincing them you know you're wrong to think

(44:26):
this way, think that way about this issue. I'm just like,
that's really.

Speaker 2 (44:30):
It okay, But that's all within the committee.

Speaker 3 (44:33):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
If I'm a company external to the committee, how do
I get my position argued by a member of the committee.

Speaker 3 (44:42):
You meet with them and make the case. It helps
if you're from the district, you have a connection to
the member, relationship with them, and make the case. Most
people have a scattershot approach. They'll meet with all the
members and hope that someone will be their champion.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
You know, there's been a lot of discussion about certainly
tech companies who didn't have lobbyists and hired lobbyists. The RIUBLEA,
the Recording Industry Association of America, is essentially a lobbying outfit.
To what degree are lobbyists important in getting your side
of the argument heard?

Speaker 3 (45:31):
If you're a member, you mean, and you want to
make an argument, how important are lobbyists to like advancing
that argument.

Speaker 2 (45:38):
Yes, or even from externally. I'm a company and I
want to get my representative to hear my argument, to
put forth my argument right.

Speaker 3 (45:50):
I think the lobbyists play a sort of function of
they probably know the issue. They're spending all day thinking
about this, building arguments, writing memos, they're willing to go
talk to other people. For you, as a member or
a staffer, you're probably working on a thousand things that

(46:11):
can't dedicate all of your time to that. And so
I think if you're thinking the same way, you know
someone from a company is thinking that that could be helpful.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
Okay, let me put it in a different way. If I'm
somebody in Missouri who has a business is successful, and
I have no presence in Washington, will it behooved me
to hire a lobbyist or some company washing just to
make the connection to the people who are addressing or
could address my issue.

Speaker 3 (46:44):
Sure, I think that's probably the normal thing.

Speaker 2 (46:47):
You know.

Speaker 3 (46:47):
I've never been in that position where I had to,
you know, come calling on Congress, but I think that's
probably what most people do. You know, you're living in
the Midwest, there is some problem with some law law
that you think is hurting your company. You think that
Congress should look at changing that. You're probably going to
look to retain some law firm or lobbyist in DC

(47:09):
that can help you navigate the process. That's right.

Speaker 2 (47:12):
So in the Judicial Committee, what music entertainment issues are
presently being debated.

Speaker 3 (47:22):
Well, certainly all of these AI issues are being debated.
That's that's a really nascent conversation. In some ways, we're
taking a lot of testimony. We're hearing from a lot
of folks, what what could happen in the future, what
people want us to do. That's there. You know, there

(47:42):
is this issue of the terrestrial performance, right. This is
something that has been around for you know, fifty one
hundred years. You know, the sound recording artists basically say
they should get paid for being played on radio and
they're not. Radio obviously has a different take on it,

(48:08):
and people are split. But that that's something that's that's
always alive. Uh, And I think we're having a hearing
on that issue in a couple of weeks.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
In any other music, copyright, entertainment issues that are either
actively or floating around the committee.

Speaker 3 (48:26):
It's really it's all it's been all a I uh,
you know, almost all the time. This Congress, I mean,
the ticketmaster thing is a live discussion that that people
are people are having. But outside of that, relatively you know,

(48:48):
relatively calm.

Speaker 2 (48:49):
Okay, So you know, Congress does not have a reputation
for moving quickly, certainly in the technological sphere, will movement
in the AI regulation area come from Congress or will
come from an external source?

Speaker 3 (49:08):
Well it Congress has said, uh, this Congress, We've got
this AI task Force's equal representation of Republicans and Democrats.
They're holding all these meetings, hearing from you know, the
defense industry, that you know, tech companies, everybody's coming in

(49:29):
for these sort of forums. And I think this panel
at the end of the year will make some recommendations
about what they think Congress should do on these issues.
You have the administration of doing things via executive order
looking at you know, there are things that executive branch

(49:50):
agencies can be doing with AI. Senator Schumer put out
a report about AI. There's a lot of happening. How
asked all of that will come together? Hard to tell.
I'm not sure. I don't think anything will happen before
the end of the year. I don't think anyone would

(50:12):
disagree with that.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Yeah, it's an issue with even the players can't agree
on and within the committee. Does this break down by
political parties or is everybody basically you know, learning and
thinking what the best thing to do is.

Speaker 3 (50:27):
People are learning and thinking about what the best thing
to do is on AI hardly any like tech issues,
IP issues, they don't break down on party lines. They
really it's there's a whole almost an entirely different paradigm
for thinking about like copyright protection and what people have.

(50:51):
You know, some people would say more it should be cheaper,
the government shouldn't provide as much protection for creative work.
So other people are like, that's crazy. You know, we
need we are way under compensating, you know, creative artists.
We should really increase, increase the rights people have. I

(51:12):
think it sort of breaks down along along those lines
more than more than anything else.

Speaker 2 (51:17):
Okay, you're saying these hearings, these are traditional hearings that
we're talking about with every member gets five minutes or
might I come in and speak to five representatives? What
are all these hearings you're referencing on AI?

Speaker 3 (51:31):
These are not hearings. This is a what we'd call
a task force, and so it is a more informal thing.
They've got some rules in place where people come in
and I think they give them five minutes. It might
be ten, but it's it's a more informal sort of
tribunal for hearing for hear hearing out the issues, and

(51:53):
I think a more freewheeling discussion. They try and you know,
keep some rules in place. People are still asking questions
of the witness, but it's a little looser and I
don't think there's a record being built. It's more of
a you know, a place where people can just talk
more freely.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
And will this be you talk about a record? Will
this be on c spin, will there be any report?
Or this is basically in chambers.

Speaker 3 (52:18):
It's basically in chambers. Basically in chambers for now. But
while that's happening, all of the various committees are holding
hearings on these issues and you know, talking through talking
through them on the record and having legislative hearings and
putting bills forward.

Speaker 2 (52:35):
Now, the average person can't understand what AI is, even
though they're using AI every day on their phones, et cetera.
You know, these committees address a million issues. To what
degree are the individuals up to speed on some of
these issues.

Speaker 3 (52:54):
It would surprise you, I think how knowledge jible some
members can become. Uh And I think it would also
surprise you at you know, how little knowledge some people have.
The really great thing about working in Congress is it's

(53:18):
really easy to get information. There are a lot of
people that want to help you understand. We've got the
Congressional Research Service there staff, You've got sort of legislative
counsel to advise you on how bills are going to
be written. So anyone that wants to learn can learn
a lot of really smart people working on these things,
and that the hearings are really there to, you know,

(53:40):
to help you learn. And I think, frankly, that's why
they're doing some of this is, as you said in Chambers,
because these issues are novel, they're complex. People want the
opportunity to, you know, like ask what might be perceived
as a stupid question.

Speaker 2 (53:55):
Let's go back to antitrust for a minute. You have
the DOJ, and there's doing Live Nation. You have Lena Kahan,
and you have the Congress. How do those responsibilities to
divide up into what degree do they overlap?

Speaker 3 (54:11):
So put it simply, Congress writes the laws and then
Lena and Jonathan enforced the laws. You've got Lena Khanna,
you noted at the FTC, which is a commission of
five people currently controlled by by Lena, who used to
work at Before she was there, she worked at the

(54:32):
Judiciary Committee, and they've got a big piece of anti
trust and they've got a lot of other responsibilities at
the FTC also, and then you have the DOJ, which
is run by the DOJ Anti Trust Division, which is
run by Jonathan Canter and just doing anti trust.

Speaker 2 (54:54):
So how'd you get this job?

Speaker 3 (54:55):
How do I get that? You know, Bob? I came
to Capitol Hill in two thousand and eleven and I thought,
you know, I like DC, I like policy work. It's
important to understand Capitol Hill. I'll stay here for one

(55:16):
year and then go do something else. And you know,
almost fourteen years later, I'm still here, still kicking around.
It's been a lot of fun. It's been a lot
of fun.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Well, let's go back to the beginning. Where you're from.

Speaker 3 (55:31):
From Pittsburgh, outside of Pittsburgh, Cranberry Township.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
Okay, And what your parents do for a living?

Speaker 3 (55:39):
My parents do. My mother it's like a sales rep.
And my father was an engineer, got civil engineer, doing
energy stuff.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
And how many kids in the family, just.

Speaker 3 (55:54):
Me and my brother.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
What's your brother up to?

Speaker 3 (55:57):
My brother lives out there in LA with you. He's
he's doing like the communications work for a hospital or something.

Speaker 2 (56:07):
Okay, did you say with the yalies? Who'd you say?

Speaker 3 (56:10):
No? With a hospital?

Speaker 2 (56:11):
With a hospital? Okay?

Speaker 3 (56:12):
Communications were with a hospital. Sorry. And you go to
college where I go to George Mason down here?

Speaker 2 (56:18):
Any particular reason you go to George Mason.

Speaker 3 (56:21):
Yeah. I was on the debate team at George Mason.
They had a great debate program, and so that was
kind of what drove me down there. I wanted to
be in DC, so everything kind of lined up. It
was a great experience.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
Did you go directly from undergrad to law school?

Speaker 3 (56:40):
No? I, like I said, I got this.

Speaker 2 (56:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:45):
I got a job on Capitol Hill, thought it was
not going to be awesome, and that I'd go to
law school right afterward. I was on Capitol Hill for
about four years, realized I wasn't going to leave, and
made the decision to go to law school at night,
also at George Mason while working on the hill.

Speaker 2 (57:07):
Okay, So you graduated from college what year.

Speaker 3 (57:10):
Two thousand and four or two thousand and eight? Sorry,
got there in four graduated in o eight.

Speaker 2 (57:16):
How long did it take you to go to law
school at night?

Speaker 3 (57:19):
About four years.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
It's a lot of work, okay. So what happens when
you start working on Capitol Hill and it evolves into
where you are now, what's your first job? And then
where do you go from there? Sure?

Speaker 3 (57:34):
So I got there in twenty and eleven and I
worked for Dary Lisa, who's now the IP Subcommittee chair
in like a totally different role at the he was
at the Oversight Committee at the time. I got to
know him pretty well. In twenty fourteen, he asked me

(57:58):
to come be his life legislative director, so I sort
of managed his whole legislative shop while he was the
chair of the IP Subcommittee and then Judi Charry Committee
after that.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
Okay, let's be a little more granular. What's your very
first job and how do you get it?

Speaker 3 (58:17):
Very first job on Capitol Hill was as a professional
staff member on the Oversight Committee, which at the time
was chaired by mister Isaa.

Speaker 2 (58:29):
How do you get a job like that?

Speaker 3 (58:32):
You know, it's how you get a job on Capitol
Hill is a funny thing. You got to be in
the right place at the right time. Congress had just
changed and the twenty ten cycle. I knew some people
from George Mason that were there and sort of expressed

(58:54):
some interest and potentially going to Capitol Hill, like I said,
to get the experience, got an interview, and to get
the job. And the thing about these changes is like
you could have to hire twenty thirty forty people within
a couple of months to staff up and so right place,
right time, that really really makes a difference.

Speaker 2 (59:16):
So what did you actually do when you started? What
did I do? So?

Speaker 3 (59:22):
This was it was the Oversight Committee. So at that
time there was a lot of like oversight of the
GM bailout and of the tart program and of the
stimulus program and where's the money going, how's it being spent?
Asking questions of people. It was like a lot of
a lot of that stuff, less like policy work.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
Okay, what were you doing?

Speaker 3 (59:45):
I was doing that. I was you know, like writing
letters to the you know, companies that got bailout money.
I was talking to members about what we found in
the documents that we got from these company he is
about the government funds they received it. A lot of

(01:00:06):
writing letters and sort of you know, talking talking to
people about how they were like waste for out and abuse.

Speaker 4 (01:00:14):
Basically, how do you become so tight with ISA from working?

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
I didn't know him at all. When I uh took
the job at the at the Oversight Committee, didn't didn't
know him hardly at all. It was probably a year
or you know, it was probably a year or so
before he even knew my name. But over the years
we've become, you know, very close. He gave the blessing

(01:00:48):
at my wedding last year. He's I consider him a
good friend.

Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
Okay, Isa happens to be a Republican. Does that have
anything to do with you getting the job or you
just working in this committee and he gets a takes
a liking to you.

Speaker 3 (01:01:09):
I'm working in this committee. He takes a liking to
me and is working for the majority controlled by Republicans.
That's right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:16):
I used to make his money in Carl Alarms. Does
he ever talk about that?

Speaker 3 (01:01:21):
He does talk about that Bob He you know, he's
the voice of the viper Carl Alarm, the like step
away from the car protected by Viper, that's his voice.
He had. I think he's got thirty seven patents or something.
He like, he's a really really smart guy that knows

(01:01:46):
intellectual property. He was actually, I think for a while
involved in a copyright lawsuit against Shack because Shack had
used part of the protected by viper bit in a song,
and so yeah, that's that's what story loves itself.

Speaker 2 (01:02:04):
But yeah, okay, let's go back. You're working, you become
tight with Isa, and he gives you what job and
what are the responsibilities there?

Speaker 3 (01:02:15):
I go to his office to be his legislative director.
So on Capitol Hill, basically you either worked for a member,
and a member personal office has got like about twelve
staffers in it, you know, a chief of staff, a
legislative director, other people working on specific issues, or or
you work for a committee where you're sort of more

(01:02:36):
of a subject matter expert. So I go to IS's
personal office to be his legislative director, basically oversee the
legislative portfolio. It was during this time we worked on
the Music Modernization Act. He wrote the Classics Act, which
was a part of the Music Modernization Act, which basically

(01:02:58):
worked to present or protect rather pre seventy two sound recordings.
This was a you know, legacy issue that had been
around for a while.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
You say he wrote who actually wrote it?

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
Well, I guess I wrote it in the sense that, yeah,
he had long wanted to take care of this issue.
There's a lot of music from the fifties and sixties.
He really likes you'd hear from these people. He wanted
to solve this issue for them. Sort of directed me
to find a solution. I talked to a bunch of people,

(01:03:34):
you know, and concluding this, you know, people in the
music community, music distributors, and try and find a way
to write the bill the best way that we can.
You talk with led council about you know, what part

(01:03:55):
of chapter seventeen this belongs in, and how you write
the thing. So the course are going to interpret it
the right way?

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
Okay, Daryl comes to you, says, I want to address
this issue. How long do you come back with a
piece of writing.

Speaker 3 (01:04:10):
He was one of the things the next day. But
it probably you know, it depends on the complexity of
the issue. In that case, I mean, it took weeks
months of talking talking to folks about the right way
to do this.

Speaker 2 (01:04:26):
Okay, So you gather all your information, you write it.
What literally happens next.

Speaker 3 (01:04:34):
You write it, give it to him. He signs the bill,
He walks it over to what we'd call the hopper,
you know, in the house. You put the bill in
the hopper, so that it's filed, it'll get an HR
number whatever it was, you know, HR thirteen fifty nine,
and it's just the you know number of it's the

(01:04:55):
last bill introduced at that point in the Congress is
the number on the bill, and then it's sitting there
and everyone knows it's been introduced. What you do then,
or you might do some of this before you file it,
is you basically try and get other members of Congress
to co sponsor your bill. So, yeah, go to other

(01:05:19):
people that you think might be into this issue and
you kind of pitch them on it to build up
co sponsors. And that's a really important part of the
process because if you have other members basically saying I'm
totally on board with this, it gives you know, the
speaker and leadership confidence that this thing has support. You know, generally,

(01:05:41):
the more co sponsors the better. If you want to
be an original co sponsor, you would sign on, you know,
before before the bill is introduced, which basically signifies you know,
you had some role in creating the bill or coming
up with the idea.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
Okay, when you're working with ISA and yours legislative director,
how many people in the office are in the legislative area.

Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
How many people. There are probably five people under me
in that office, and sort of divided up by issue area.
You know, someone might have like energy and environment and healthcare,
and someone else might have, you know, taxes and veterans affairs,

(01:06:27):
and you know, any manner everything. I mean, all of
the business before the House, which is all of the
business of the American public, is really that exists in
every congressional office because at some point you're gonna have
to vote on some bill related to that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
Okay, So what was your next job after that?

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
So back to so is a rich hires And then
for me, it was where basically where I'm at now.

Speaker 2 (01:07:01):
But didn't Isa lose an election and then come back.

Speaker 3 (01:07:05):
He he's very very sensitive about this, Bob. He did
not lose an election. He retired near the end of
twenty eighteen.

Speaker 2 (01:07:17):
Okay, then let's just accept the language not important to me.
If he is out of Congress, Andy comes back to
what degreed does he lose or regain his seniority and positions?

Speaker 3 (01:07:33):
That's a great question. You keep your seniority, So even
if you left ten years ago, but before then you'd
spent ten years on the Judiciary Committee. You've got more
seniority than anyone with less than ten years of seniority
on Judiciary Committee. He's sort of come back.

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
So let's assume let's say I'm out of office and
I have ten years and I come back. Am I
immediately able to get on the Judicial your committee? Or
might they say no?

Speaker 3 (01:08:02):
They could say no, but it's not likely they're almost
certainly going to put you back, especially with that level
of seniority. There's a deference there. They might even, you know,
if they had to, might like kick a freshman off
the committee.

Speaker 2 (01:08:16):
Okay, so Isa is out of d C. Tell me
how you transition into the next job.

Speaker 3 (01:08:23):
I say, is out of d C. I was trying
to figure out what to do and got a call
from now Chairman Jim Jordan who basically said, hey, I,
you know, come work for me. Could you could use

(01:08:46):
your help? And ultimately I said yes.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
How did Jim Jordan know who you were.

Speaker 3 (01:08:53):
From being around the committee, being around Capitol Hill?

Speaker 2 (01:08:57):
So when he comes to ask you to come work
for you, what year and what is that job?

Speaker 3 (01:09:02):
That job was? This is the end of twenty eighteen,
and I hadn't made a decision I think it was
December of twenty eighteen. You know, I said, was leaving
at the end of so I would have been out
of a job in a matter of weeks and that

(01:09:27):
that's kind of that's when he called, and that's when
I said, yes, he basically tells it. There's some of
this gets strangely like it gets a little personal, but
he basically said, hey. I said, hey, I like music stuff,
I like eyepiece stuff, you know, I like a lot
of things that are going on. He said, come work
for me. You can do that stuff, you know, kind

(01:09:49):
of whatever, you know, whatever you want to do. At
that point he was he was cool if I'm yeah.
At the time, I had a lot of friends working
there for him. My father was really sick and I
knew Chairman Jordan pretty well, and he was kind of like, hey,

(01:10:15):
that like, come work here, the accommodating of everything going
on in your life. And so that was kind of
where the decision came from.

Speaker 2 (01:10:26):
What happened with your father's illness.

Speaker 3 (01:10:28):
Well, he passed away from cancer that in like the
beginning of twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
During just wow heavy losing a p It.

Speaker 3 (01:10:38):
Was, yeah, obviously not ideal, but you know, very sad,
but it happened in January of twenty twenty, so I
think it was a blessing that it sort of all
happened pre COVID so we didn't have to like deal
with the like that whole situation.

Speaker 2 (01:10:57):
Okay, your father passes. How does your situation evolve at
the Judicial Committee?

Speaker 3 (01:11:07):
It it, I mean, largely stays the same. I mean
I really love these issues at that point, I mean
it was it's the job I have. Now I have,
you know, no idea how long I'll keep doing this,
but for now it's awesome. I mean you're right in
the middle of everything. You get to interact with just

(01:11:30):
about everybody and learn cool stuff. I think you really
get to have an opportunity to have have an impact
on on the legislative process on where things go.

Speaker 2 (01:11:41):
Okay, you're the head guy. Now when Jim Jordan hires you,
does he hire you as the head guy?

Speaker 3 (01:11:49):
Is it like the one of there's like the policy guy. Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
Okay, So how long was your predecessor in this role?

Speaker 3 (01:12:03):
So before Jordan was chaired the committee? Now there was
chair of the committee, and I think for quite some time,
like I mean, you know, ten to fifteen years.

Speaker 2 (01:12:18):
So let's just assume for the sake of discussion, Jim
Jordan continues to chair this committee. At what point would
you pull the ripcord?

Speaker 3 (01:12:29):
That's a question I get almost every day. I have
no idea. I don't really make plans. You know that
this isn't forever. I enjoy every day I have this job.
I think it's great. Most people don't stay on the
hill as long as I have, but the average tenures
something like three four years. Most people, believe it or not,

(01:12:54):
are much younger than me. But for now, I'm not
to be here. I don't have I don't have plans
to leave.

Speaker 2 (01:13:02):
Okay, So theoretically, could there be a move, whether it
be you or someone in the same role, from the
Judiciary Committee policy person to another job in Congress, Senate,
the government somewhere. Does it ever work that way? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:13:19):
Well, like Lena Lena Cone you mentioned he was a
Judiciary Committee and now running the Federal Trade Commission. People move,
move around all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
And how come people only tend to last for three
or four years.

Speaker 3 (01:13:35):
Uh, it's a lot of hours. It's not easy work.
I personally, I like the pace. I like being busy,
but I mean you have weeks where you're working. You know,
it could be eighteen hours a day, and then the
next week it's much slower and much calmer because the
members of Congress will leave town. I personally really like

(01:13:57):
that pace. The ebb and flow is fun for me.
It's not for everyone. I think a lot of people
want to leave and make more money the hill notoriously
doesn't you know you're not going to get rich doing this.

Speaker 2 (01:14:10):
Do you have the kind of job? Or people in
Washington but work peripheral to the government are recruiting you
and say come work to the other sign.

Speaker 3 (01:14:20):
Over the years, sure people have made overtures about like, oh,
it'd be great if you came and worked here or there.
You know, nothing has struck my fancy, like I said,
and I'm really happy where I am.

Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
Okay, And how much of your work is supervisory or
work you're doing independently.

Speaker 3 (01:14:44):
I would say I bet seventy five percent of it
is supervisory sort of talking to people about what they're doing,
reviewing their work, guiding them, giving advice, giving counseled. It's
a lot of that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:03):
Okay, everybody on the Judiciary Committee know you yes, if
there are four hundred and thirty five members of Congress.
How many of them might know you.

Speaker 3 (01:15:18):
More than fifty and less than four hundred.

Speaker 2 (01:15:22):
Would Joe Biden possibly know who you are or whoever's
president at that moment? Uh?

Speaker 3 (01:15:28):
Definitely not, definitely not.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
Is there an equivalent in the Senate? And what do
we do interact with that person here?

Speaker 3 (01:15:38):
We interact with the Senate quite You kind of have
to to make sure you're on the same page. Would
Joe Biden know that person? The answers almost definitely know,
unless there's something I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:15:51):
Okay, is it the kind of job like with Jeffrey
Katzenberg when he was at Disney, If you don't come
in on Saturday, don't even think about coming in on.

Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
I'm not sure I follow you well, if you don't
come in on Saturday, Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:16:07):
What it means? Is it a seven day a week job?

Speaker 3 (01:16:10):
Yeah, oh, definitely definitely. It could be a three am
on Sunday job. Yeah, you are. You're always on call?

Speaker 2 (01:16:19):
And how does one maintain a relationship with that kind
of schedule.

Speaker 3 (01:16:25):
I have a very wonderful and understanding wife who's patient.
She likes to say to your point, she says he's
always working and never working. I think because I enjoy
the work, you know what, I'm always doing it and
kind of at this point, I've seen enough of the
issues that I could. It's never really that taxing to

(01:16:47):
sort of go to work and take care of something
as it comes up.

Speaker 2 (01:16:51):
And are your friends civilians are people in the business,
so to speak.

Speaker 3 (01:16:57):
Mixture of both. I mean, you don't work somewhere for
fourteen years and not develop some friendships there. But I've
got I've got a good number of civilian friends.

Speaker 2 (01:17:05):
Also. Okay, we live in an era where there's never
been less respect for institutions. It's not only Congress, it's
the government at large, it's attorneys. We could go on.
What would you tell in response to people who say, oh,
you know, uh, Congress is a body that is locked up,

(01:17:25):
doesn't achieve anything, and roll their eyes.

Speaker 3 (01:17:30):
It is pretty locked up, right. I don't want to
want to be cynical here. I mean it's locked up.
It's hard to get things done. I think the founders
wanted it to be hard to get things done right
changing make you know, if changing the law were easy,
I think that would be a that would be a problem.
You know, and there I would say most of what

(01:17:53):
you see is probably the worst of it all, you know,
but what cable news shares and what you're seeing on
Twitter from clips is like one percent of what's happening
on Capitol Hill. The most of what's happening is good
people trying to do the right thing for their constituents.

Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
Obviously members are elected, but how important are relationships in
terms of getting ahead? You know, like in the entertainment business,
you don't know anybody, you can't even start. Is it
the same in DC?

Speaker 3 (01:18:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:18:29):
I think it is.

Speaker 3 (01:18:30):
You know, Reagan famously said DC's Hollywood for ugly people.
It's it's the same thing. It's it's I mean, we
are nothing except for the decisions that we make. Right.
This is just a job where people are everything. You
need other people to get anything done.

Speaker 2 (01:18:48):
And what issues might you see coming down the pike
in the ip Era area.

Speaker 3 (01:18:55):
It's really hard to see past ip I mean for
past Ai that that is the big thing that's happening
right now. I don't know what happens after this. There
is the people have talked about some tweaks to the
Music Modernization Act, but that's kind of the that's not

(01:19:20):
the kind of thing you're talking about though, in terms
of big issues, it's it's really it's it's AI.

Speaker 2 (01:19:27):
And what is the breadth of what might be addressed
legislatively on AI?

Speaker 3 (01:19:36):
So you know, when it comes to like economy wide
AI that you're talking about, everything from like a GAO
study on understanding AI might get passed by Congress to
like full scaled, robust regulatory regime. I think that there

(01:19:59):
is a a growing consensus that like it is premature
to sort of regulate AI right now, that just given
that this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't want to
do anything to sort of hold back the United States
that we don't know enough yet to jump to those
kind of conclusions. In the music space, in particular, the

(01:20:23):
conversations revolving around protecting you know, name, image and likeness,
which is not really a copyright question. It's a trademark
question more than anything else.

Speaker 2 (01:20:36):
And sort of.

Speaker 3 (01:20:39):
That's generally what's happening.

Speaker 2 (01:20:41):
So what would you tell to someone who wanted to
work on Capitol Hill?

Speaker 3 (01:20:47):
Would they do it? And most people that want to
do it this might surprise you and your listeners to hear,
but over the years, I've met a lot of people
that are like, I'd love to work on cap Hill
and most of them do you know, if if it's
something you want bad enough and you have coffee with
enough people, the churned people leaving people coming is so

(01:21:11):
great that like you'll find something to do.

Speaker 2 (01:21:14):
And to what degree does being an attorney help you?

Speaker 3 (01:21:19):
It's complicated a lot of people. I would say if
you were to ask, like, what's the normal path on
Capitol Hill? Uh, people are interns and then they are
like staff assistants, and then legislative correspondence that a legislative assistant,
then maybe a legislative director. Then maybe they'll go to committee.
It's sort of this process of you know, learning learning

(01:21:41):
the rope. There's nowhere to learn it unless you're there.
If you're an attorney, it's probably harder to find a
job on Capitol Hill because you probably want to go
work at a committee. Those jobs are a little harder
to get. But certainly it helps if you if you have,
if you have your law degree to do the work.

(01:22:01):
But I'm not sure it gives you like an advantage
in getting up there.

Speaker 2 (01:22:05):
Okay, so what would you tell to someone who has
an issue that they would like a legislative solution to.
I'm somewhere, I'm in an industry, I see a problem.
What would be my best step moving forward to ultimately
get my case heard by Congress and hopefully get some
action taken.

Speaker 3 (01:22:27):
I would tell that person to call me, but I
would say, if you contact your representative's office, they're going
to take the meeting. You'd be astounded at the number
of letters offices reply to and the number of meetings

(01:22:48):
people take. If you ask for a meeting and you
don't get a reply, ask again and ask them who
else you should talk to. You know, if you are
a sophisticated, you know company that's having an issue, you
probably are going to want to hire a law firm
that just knows how Capitol Hill works. You know, they'll

(01:23:09):
kind of direct you in the right, right right areas like, oh,
don't go to that person you know that's a Democrat
that will never agree with you, or don't go to
that person they're not on any relevant committees, or you know,
go to go to this person. Ideally, you probably want
to get a meeting with the you know, chair of
the relevant subcommittee or committee and see if they'll hear

(01:23:33):
you out.

Speaker 2 (01:23:34):
And is being a pest a good thing or a
bad thing?

Speaker 3 (01:23:39):
It can be both. I think it depends what kind
of a pest you are. You know, the people that
send like all caps emails every week. Uh, that's not
a good strategy. Uh, you know, but people that are like, Hey,
I'm a constituent, I've got this issue, can you help
me out. If you don't get a reply, like, you're

(01:24:00):
going to make the person who's reading that email feel
guilty they didn't reply to you, and they're probably going
to get back to you.

Speaker 2 (01:24:06):
Okay, Tyler, thanks for taking the time with my audience
and illuminating what's going on in DC and inside the
Congress and the Judiciary Committee.

Speaker 3 (01:24:16):
Hey, Bob, my pleasure. I love the showgir to.

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
Be with you until next time. This is Bob left
six