Speaker 1: Welcome, Welcome, Welcome back to the Bob Left Set podcasts.
Speaker 1: My guest today is Tyler Grimm, who's chief counsel for
Speaker 1: Policy and Strategy at the Judiciary Committee of the US
Speaker 1: House of Representatives.
Speaker 2: Tyler, you went to see Roger Daltrey last night? How
Speaker 2: was he?
Speaker 3: It was awesome for being eighty years old. He really
Speaker 3: brought it. I gotta say it was kind of f
Speaker 3: I've probably seen The Who a dozen times in my life,
Speaker 3: never saw Adultrey alone. He was great. He could tell
Speaker 3: he really wanted to swing the microphone, but eighty that
Speaker 3: just wasn't happening. He did bring it out for the encore.
Speaker 3: We got a couple couple of Mike throws. He was awesome.
Speaker 3: You know, he's got Pete Townsend's brother Simon up there
Speaker 3: with him. He seems to be really happy doing his
Speaker 3: own thing. He you know, played some covers, played mostly
Speaker 3: Whose songs, played a couple of his original songs. It
Speaker 3: was great.
Speaker 2: Okay, you're a relatively young guy. How do you become
Speaker 2: a fan of the Who?
Speaker 3: I grew up on the Who. My parents were really
Speaker 3: into music. We started going to concerts when I was
Speaker 3: like five years old. That's basically like what we did
Speaker 3: when we grew up. We didn't go to a lot
Speaker 3: of sports games. We went to concerts. I would look
Speaker 3: and see what concerts were coming to town, beg my
Speaker 3: parents to take me. I think my first concert was
Speaker 3: Elton John and Billy Joel and the second one was
Speaker 3: Tom Petty h And I was just addicted to live
Speaker 3: music from a really young age. My household was it
Speaker 3: was the Stones, it was the Who, primarily the Who
Speaker 3: you know later Pearl Jam, but it was a rock
Speaker 3: and roll house.
Speaker 2: How about acts that are of a newer vintage? Are
Speaker 2: you a fan of those?
Speaker 3: Definitely? I do. Like I really love Pearl Jam's new album.
Speaker 3: I think I think, uh it's there, it's their best
Speaker 3: piece of work in years. Really like I like Gaslight
Speaker 3: Ants them a lot. I like Camp a lot. I
Speaker 3: saw Zach Bryan earlier this year. He was awesome newer music,
Speaker 3: sort of of the rock variety. But I listen to anything.
Speaker 2: Okay, So I'm the Judiciary Committee. How much can you
Speaker 2: talk music with? And are the members fans of music?
Speaker 3: Uh, there's a lot of music fans on the Judiciary Committee, Actually, Bob,
Speaker 3: it is you know, to set the stage here like
Speaker 3: music and movies. We are the primary committee for the
Speaker 3: entertainment industry. Anything copyright, any IP, anything anti trust comes
Speaker 3: through the committee. And we have some members that, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm not sure listen to all that much music. Other
Speaker 3: members that play instruments, that are in bands. We've got
Speaker 3: a member, Kelly Armstrong, who will be the next governor
Speaker 3: of North Dakota. I went to the Zach Bryan concert
Speaker 3: with him. Earlier this year. We saw Tyler Childers together.
Speaker 3: He loves Camp. That's another new band I love, sort
Speaker 3: of great musical taste. There's a lot of music talk
Speaker 3: on the committee.
Speaker 2: How old is Keller?
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm reluctant to guess, but I'd say I give
Speaker 3: him the benefit of the doubt and say early forties.
Speaker 2: Okay, So if we start talking about copyright issues the
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee, are they pretty familiar with these things or
Speaker 2: do you have to brief them and bring them up
Speaker 2: to speed.
Speaker 3: You've got brief them, right, I mean, you've got a
Speaker 3: brief members on any issue, and it varies member to members.
Speaker 3: Some people are super familiar. They've been doing this for
Speaker 3: a quarter century or more. They've seen a number of
Speaker 3: laws passed, very familiar with the issues and the players
Speaker 3: and what's going on. Others are totally new to this
Speaker 3: but want to learn. You've got some that aren't there
Speaker 3: to do copyright, aren't there to do music issues, and
Speaker 3: you know, they want to understand it for that day
Speaker 3: and then you know, maybe move on to the next thing.
Speaker 2: So not everybody's educated, certainly outside America about the ins
Speaker 2: and outs of the government. What exactly is the Judiciary Committee?
Speaker 3: Sure, so we've obviously got the Congress, which is comprised
Speaker 3: of the House and the Senate. In the House, all
Speaker 3: the work that's done to get a bill to the
Speaker 3: floor before it becomes law is really done at committees,
Speaker 3: and the committee's di eied off work by topic area.
Speaker 3: And so we've got all intellectual property at the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 3: So if you're going to write a bill that has
Speaker 3: to do with patents or trademarks or copyrights, it will
Speaker 3: come before the committee. The committee will have what we
Speaker 3: call a markup where we'll consider bills, try to amend them,
Speaker 3: debate them, and then vote on them. If a bill
Speaker 3: is successfully voted out of the committee, that's sort of
Speaker 3: primed for floor action, and the floor could take up
Speaker 3: the bill, and then you see what the Senate does
Speaker 3: and see if the President will sign it.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's start at the ground floor. There's a Judiciary
Speaker 2: Committee in the House. Is there an equivalent committee in
Speaker 2: the Senate?
Speaker 3: There is Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and they both
Speaker 3: have sort of subcommittees more dedicated to specific issue areas.
Speaker 3: So there's an intellectual property subcommittee in both the House
Speaker 3: and the Senate, and that's where a lot of this
Speaker 3: work will get done.
Speaker 2: Okay. So let's say I'm someone who wants a passage
Speaker 2: of a bill. Where do I start with the House
Speaker 2: or the Senate. Does it make any.
Speaker 3: Difference, doesn't make a lot of doesn't make a lot
Speaker 3: of difference. There are some exceptions, some kinds of bills
Speaker 3: have to originate in the House, but in this case,
Speaker 3: by and large, either chamber a bill could start it.
Speaker 3: So let's say that you're someone who sees some problem
Speaker 3: in the music royalty space and you think there needs
Speaker 3: to be a fixed You probably call your member, ideally
Speaker 3: a member of the Judiciary committee, pitch them on the issue,
Speaker 3: try and get them to write a bill. They'd write
Speaker 3: a bill, it would get introduced into the House, it
Speaker 3: would get referred to the Judiciary Committee, and then the
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee could take up that bill, and the rest
Speaker 3: of that process would play out.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we hear about the House and the Senate
Speaker 2: having different bills and then needing to come up with one.
Speaker 2: How does that work?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so this happens all the time. Usually, you know,
Speaker 3: let's say bill gets all the way through in the House,
Speaker 3: passes on the floor, everybody's happy. A bill that's slightly
Speaker 3: different makes it all the way through the Senate more
Speaker 3: often than not. As a House guy, I'm sad to
Speaker 3: say the House will take up the Senate bill. Sometimes
Speaker 3: the Senate takes up the House bill, and then whichever
Speaker 3: one passes both chambers will get sent to the President
Speaker 3: to be signed it to law.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's assume I'm oblivious and I want to
Speaker 2: introduce a bill. I want to get something done. In
Speaker 2: terms of the House, welir Senate, they're essentially equal, and
Speaker 2: it's more of who I know to get started. What
Speaker 2: would motivate me to go to one chamber or the other?
Speaker 3: I'd say, it's really it's who you know, who you
Speaker 3: think is going to champion the issue, who has a
Speaker 3: history of working on these issues. Maybe who has seniority,
Speaker 3: who's got more clout, and one of the chambers, who's
Speaker 3: closer to leadership that would put the bill on the floor.
Speaker 3: All of that, someone's going to be a good advocate
Speaker 3: for you.
Speaker 2: Really. Okay, you talked about copyright. The Judiciary Committee in
Speaker 2: the House, which is where you work. What other issues
Speaker 2: do they address? What other subcommittees? What is the whole
Speaker 2: of the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 3: That's a great question, Bob. So you've got intellectual property there,
Speaker 3: so all the things I mentioned. You've got the whole
Speaker 3: court system the federal judiciary. You've got antitrust, so anti
Speaker 3: trust at the FTC and and you've got immigration, You've
Speaker 3: got crime, you've got First Amendment issues. It is a
Speaker 3: large array of issues at Judiciary.
Speaker 2: Okay, just you know, to paint the picture. There's the
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee. What are some of the other committees the
Speaker 2: House has?
Speaker 3: Sure, So there's the Budget Committee. Obviously they're writing the budget.
Speaker 3: You've got the Energy and Commerce Committee. You know, they're
Speaker 3: dealing with healthcare and energy and sort of a lot
Speaker 3: of economy wide issues. You've got the Ways and Means Committee,
Speaker 3: which is dealing with taxes, You've got the Science Committee,
Speaker 3: which is dealing with all sorts of science issues, including
Speaker 3: like NASA. You've got the Veterans Affairs Committee. I think
Speaker 3: there are you know, eighteen ish committees on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 2: And if you're in one committee, are you in that
Speaker 2: committee only? Or could you be in multiple committees?
Speaker 3: So there are some committees which we call a committees,
Speaker 3: and those are sort of exclusive, most notably like A
Speaker 3: Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, and more often
Speaker 3: than not, if you're on that committee, you're only on
Speaker 3: that committee and you're not serving on other committees. But
Speaker 3: other than that, you could be on two, three, four committees.
Speaker 3: They keep them busy.
Speaker 2: Okay, how many people are on the Judiciary Committee?
Speaker 3: It's about forty two.
Speaker 2: And how do they decide who's on the committee?
Speaker 3: Uh, there's something called the Steering Committee, and the Steering
Speaker 3: Committee basically gets together and they assign members uh, the
Speaker 3: various committees based on member interest in where there are vacancies.
Speaker 3: But typically, once you're on a committee as a member
Speaker 3: of Congress, you stay there. You're not going to kick
Speaker 3: you off unless you move up to an a committee
Speaker 3: or you you know, try to move over to some
Speaker 3: other committee. I think they really value the institutional knowledge
Speaker 3: that builds up. We're talking about copy right. You know,
Speaker 3: if you were there for a bunch of these fights,
Speaker 3: you've sort of seen how it all plays out. You
Speaker 3: can use that knowledge in the future. There's a premium
Speaker 3: people put on that, so you know, we like when
Speaker 3: people stick around.
Speaker 2: Okay, Obviously the constituency of the House changes every two years,
Speaker 2: So how would that affect the makeup of the committee.
Speaker 3: Sure, so, Uh, you know, if a member loses or
Speaker 3: resigns or isn't there anymore, Uh, they won't be on
Speaker 3: the committee. That's lot'll have to be filled.
Speaker 2: Well, let's say, you know, we have an election and
Speaker 2: let's just say they're four hundred and fifty eight members
Speaker 2: of Congress.
Speaker 3: Is that a correct on a good day? A good day,
Speaker 3: We've got.
Speaker 2: Leave about the bulls, like I got to go back
Speaker 2: to school. I don't know what you know, especially with
Speaker 2: Nate Silver with the exact numbers four fifty ye, I
Speaker 2: don't know where I got that from. But let's say hypothetically,
Speaker 2: it's you know, two seventeen to eighteen, and then there's
Speaker 2: an election and one party ends up with one hundred
Speaker 2: and the other one ends up with three hundred plus.
Speaker 2: Can't believe I got the number of representatives wrong? People
Speaker 2: to kill me. Would that effect the percentage of one
Speaker 2: party or the other party and making up the Judiciary Committee?
Speaker 3: Not necessarily, I've I think it's been quite some time
Speaker 3: since we've had a disparity that big. You know, typically
Speaker 3: the ratios remain about the same, you know, no matter
Speaker 3: who's in charge. There's so many Republicans, so many Democrats
Speaker 3: on the committee. In the Senate, it is proportional. The
Speaker 3: Senate's a whole other animal. The Senate's sort of like
Speaker 3: the Committee's laws are allocated proportional to who controls the chamber.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you're saying on the Judicial Eury Committee, essentially
Speaker 2: half are Democrats and half Republicans.
Speaker 3: Well, no, there's a who's ever in the majority has
Speaker 3: a majority of the committee slots also, but the ratio
Speaker 3: between them basically stays the same.
Speaker 2: It defined ratio in this case.
Speaker 3: So if there are you know, twenty five Republicans on
Speaker 3: the committee and seventeen Democrats, it would that that would flip.
Speaker 2: You mean, if the other party took control in the
Speaker 2: same numbers exactly exactly, Okay, So let's say, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm a member of the Juiciary Committee and my party
Speaker 2: does poorly in the next election, will I lose my seat?
Speaker 3: You could? You could if you know you're a newer
Speaker 3: member of the committee and the ratio gets cut to
Speaker 3: the point where like they've got to eliminate. It's some
Speaker 3: slots you could lose your seat on the committee.
Speaker 2: And who is chairperson in the committee?
Speaker 3: The chair right now is Jim Jordan from Ohio, and
Speaker 3: the ranking members Jerry Nadler from New York.
Speaker 2: And how do they pick those That's.
Speaker 3: Picked by the steering committee. Also in the it's a
Speaker 3: little different on the the Democrats have a different process.
Speaker 3: It's sort of the whole caucus desize. The Republican side,
Speaker 3: there is a steering committee process and they sort of
Speaker 3: vote on who's going to be chair. Once you're chair,
Speaker 3: you've got the job for six years. If you're a Republican.
Speaker 3: Democrats do it a little differently. You can kind of
Speaker 3: be chair in perpetuity.
Speaker 2: So the steering committee. Each party has the equivalent thereof
Speaker 2: that's right, that's right, okay, And whoever has the majority
Speaker 2: gets to decide the chairperson.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you get to decide your relative leadership on the committee.
Speaker 3: So if you're in the minority, you would choose the
Speaker 3: ranking member, you know, the top person on the committee
Speaker 3: for the minority, and if you're in the majority, you
Speaker 3: choose the chairperson, top person on there for the majority.
Speaker 2: As a practical matter, what does it mean if you
Speaker 2: were the party that is in control and you're the
Speaker 2: chairperson as opposed to the opposing party.
Speaker 3: Bob, it means everything. Really, the House is a majoritarian institution,
Speaker 3: and so when you're in control, you set the agenda,
Speaker 3: you decide what bills move, what bills don't move.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm trying to rationalize how they came up with
Speaker 2: four fifty eight maybe five thirty eight and eight silver.
Speaker 2: You know, I made a mistake there, it is I
Speaker 2: have to own it. Not going to cut it. So,
Speaker 2: if you are on the Judiciary Committee, might you be
Speaker 2: on multiple subcommittee?
Speaker 3: Yes, you definitely are. You're probably on at least two,
Speaker 3: maybe three.
Speaker 2: Okay, So there is a specific subcommittee for intellectual there is,
Speaker 2: and what would be the breadth what would be some
Speaker 2: of the issues that would be addressed in that subcommittee?
Speaker 3: So it's it, And to be clear, it's intellectual property
Speaker 3: and the courts and the Internet. Those are the three
Speaker 3: sort of categories of topics under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. So,
Speaker 3: you know, we've had a bunch of hearings this year
Speaker 3: on AI and copyright. We've had hearings on other sort
Speaker 3: of music royalty issues. There is a hearing just yesterday
Speaker 3: on third party litigation funding. We've had hearings on patentability
Speaker 3: and patentability related to AI. It really runs the gamut
Speaker 3: of all the all the AI, all the all the
Speaker 3: IP issues.
Speaker 2: Rather, what's the third pretty litigation funding? What is that?
Speaker 3: So this is the There are a bunch of lawsuits
Speaker 3: where we'll say one company sues another and the accusation
Speaker 3: is that, you know, the company doing the suing has
Speaker 3: a third party backer. We'll say, someone with a you know,
Speaker 3: financial stake and the outcome of the case and that party,
Speaker 3: that sort of third party might not be known to
Speaker 3: the public or to the court. And so there's a
Speaker 3: movement of foot to get transparency so people know who's suing,
Speaker 3: what their motivations are, who's sort of backing the lawsuit.
Speaker 2: Okay, as we speak, there's a big brew haha with Spotify,
Speaker 2: which now has more than music has books and they're
Speaker 2: bundling and they want to reduce rate. Is this something
Speaker 2: a that the Justice Committee might address? B Is it
Speaker 2: something you're already hearing about.
Speaker 3: It's definitely something we're hearing about. You know.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 3: The music publishers very upset about the situation. You know,
Speaker 3: they think that Spotify is is exploiting a loophole an
Speaker 3: agreement that they made in twenty twenty two. Spotify basically
Speaker 3: contends that you know, everybody signed off on this, that
Speaker 3: the publishers are you know, in fact, making more money
Speaker 3: a year over year and they shouldn't have anything to
Speaker 3: complain about that. It was I think totally foreseeable that
Speaker 3: they'd introduced audiobooks onto the platform.
Speaker 2: So okay, that's the issue. To what degree is something
Speaker 2: happening on the issue Justice Committee now?
Speaker 3: So the committee you hear when when these issues happen,
Speaker 3: there are a lot of sort of funny thing about
Speaker 3: the music space. A lot of this happens between those parties.
Speaker 3: You know, they might they're yelling at each other, trying
Speaker 3: to figure out some settlement, they might sue each other,
Speaker 3: but at the same time they're keeping the Committee apprized
Speaker 3: of this. They might get members of Congress to send
Speaker 3: letters complaining in one direction or the other. But for
Speaker 3: right now, the issue is kind of new. I haven't
Speaker 3: heard of anyone, you know, doing anything in particular about
Speaker 3: these complaints. I know that we're monitoring it, though, and
Speaker 3: we'll kind of we'll see what happens.
Speaker 2: Okay. When you say getting someone to write a letter,
Speaker 2: you mean a member writing a letter to the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 3: No, I mean a member of the Judiciary Committee or
Speaker 3: even a member off of the committee. This is a
Speaker 3: really common practice. You know, one maybe maybe the songwriters,
Speaker 3: maybe the publishers, may be you know, somebody else interested
Speaker 3: in this will say, hey, you know, ex member, I'm
Speaker 3: really upset about this. I think this is a great injustice,
Speaker 3: or I think that, you know, the songwriters are wrong
Speaker 3: to be upset about this. Send a letter to the
Speaker 3: other party asking questions and sort of raise the issue,
Speaker 3: and that kind of telegraph to the parties the Congress
Speaker 3: is paying attention. Maybe there will be a hearing, Maybe
Speaker 3: this will get elevated. It's kind of more often than
Speaker 3: not to put people back on their heels.
Speaker 2: So what does it take to have a hearing?
Speaker 3: Well, so at the IP Subcommittee, which is shaired right
Speaker 3: now by darryl Isa from California and the ranking members
Speaker 3: Hanna Johnson in Georgia, they do most things on a
Speaker 3: bipartisan basis, and they'll sort of agree we're gonna have
Speaker 3: a hearing, but it's really it's up to him. He'll say,
Speaker 3: you know, next week, I'm going to have a hearing
Speaker 3: on you know, patentability of AI generated you know, inventions,
Speaker 3: and it'll basically happen. The staff will identify witnesses that
Speaker 3: can talk about these things, will convene a panel, they'll
Speaker 3: get sworn in, we'll have a hearing. It'll last about
Speaker 3: two hours. Members will ask questions, and that's kind of
Speaker 3: the ballgame.
Speaker 2: Okay, so right now, the Republicans have the majority, so
Speaker 2: ISA can call or not call a hearing. Can a Democrat,
Speaker 2: who is the minority right now, call a hearing? No?
Speaker 3: They can't. Okay, there's like a there's a funky exception
Speaker 3: to that that I won't bore you with, but generally speaking, no,
Speaker 3: they you know, they can't call a hearing. They're sort
Speaker 3: of relying on on the majority to call a hearing.
Speaker 3: But you know, I think the majority of hearings that
Speaker 3: mister reis Is proposed have been by part of and
Speaker 3: just giving the given the nature of the subcommittee.
Speaker 2: Okay, so it's not really usually a combative process. One
Speaker 2: party wants it and one party doesn't.
Speaker 3: No, not in this space. So that's not how these
Speaker 3: issues break down. It's not really like a red versus
Speaker 3: blue thing. There's you know, other things going on that
Speaker 3: sort of divide members.
Speaker 2: Okay, so let's just use, for an example, the music industry.
Speaker 2: I gotta bug up my rear end and for whatever
Speaker 2: channel I reach, ISA, what's it going to take to
Speaker 2: actually have a hearing where you might say, hey, all
Speaker 2: this stuff is in evidence, I don't need a hearing.
Speaker 3: He's got to be convinced that it's it's sort of
Speaker 3: worth gathering the members of the committee and hearing testimony
Speaker 3: on this. Sometimes it's we might consider more often than not,
Speaker 3: it's like we're going to consider legislation on this topic.
Speaker 3: So we need to get a better understanding. We have
Speaker 3: to build a legislative record of testimony in support or
Speaker 3: against a bill. But you know, it's up to him
Speaker 3: if you came in and how persuasive meeting and he
Speaker 3: to call a.
Speaker 2: Hearing, okay, And why the two hour limit.
Speaker 3: There's no two hour limit. I'm just that's an approximate
Speaker 3: time for about the length of the subcommittee hearing.
Speaker 2: So let's assume we schedule a hearing. Does everybody on
Speaker 2: the subcommittee show up?
Speaker 3: They make their best effort to show up. As you noted,
Speaker 3: members are on multiple committees, so they're very busy. Most
Speaker 3: people try and come for at least part of it.
Speaker 3: You know, some hearings you'll have everyone there the whole time.
Speaker 3: Other times, you know, attendance can be lower than that.
Speaker 2: Let's assume we have a hearing. How do we apportion
Speaker 2: time amongst the members who are in attendance.
Speaker 3: You've got five minutes to ask questions?
Speaker 2: And can you ever can da all? Isus in charge? Now?
Speaker 2: Can he ever say? Well, you know, you're on a
Speaker 2: good thread. You got a few more minutes.
Speaker 3: Not really, that's very frowned upon and not allowed for
Speaker 3: in the rules. You can do anything by what's called
Speaker 3: unanimous consent. Really, you could say, you know, like if
Speaker 3: nobody objects, they could give whoever, you know, some extra time,
Speaker 3: allow the witness to answer more questions. They could also
Speaker 3: do a second round where they'll go around and everybody
Speaker 3: gets five minutes again.
Speaker 2: And what if for some reason, because I'm spacing out,
Speaker 2: or is it another sub committee, I get my five
Speaker 2: minutes and I asked questions if somebody already asked, let's.
Speaker 3: See, I think you hope nobody notices.
Speaker 2: Probably, Okay, so let's soon we're going to have a hearing.
Speaker 2: How many people might testify? And how do you decide
Speaker 2: who actually is testified?
Speaker 3: Got four people testify? The staff will reach out to
Speaker 3: a bunch of witnesses, the people they think could be witnesses,
Speaker 3: sort of feel them out, get a sense of their expertise,
Speaker 3: and then you know, if it makes sense to have
Speaker 3: them there and they're available, they'll they'll show up. So
Speaker 3: it's only four, No, No, it could be as many
Speaker 3: as as many as as the chair wants to have. Really,
Speaker 3: sometimes there are multiple panels. You know, you might have
Speaker 3: a panel of government witnesses and then a panel of
Speaker 3: expert witnesses. Sometimes it's one, you know, when we have
Speaker 3: like the copyright register up, it's usually just her testifying.
Speaker 3: So it really depends.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now we see hearings and we see someone make
Speaker 2: a statement before questions do I get the right to
Speaker 2: make a statement. When do I get to make a
Speaker 2: statement as opposed to just answer questions?
Speaker 3: You get to make a statement at the very beginning.
Speaker 3: You have five minutes to make a statement.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's assume I'm testifying. To what degree are these
Speaker 2: people prepared? And to what deg we should they prepare?
Speaker 3: If you're a witness testifying before the committee, I would
Speaker 3: say you spend a ton of time preparing because you
Speaker 3: never know you're under oath. Uh, it's recorded, it's there
Speaker 3: for all time, it's in the congressional record. You know,
Speaker 3: people usually do what's called a murder board will. They'll
Speaker 3: sit down, have lawyers with them, you know, run through
Speaker 3: questions they might be asked and how they're going to
Speaker 3: answer them. That's almost certainly the case for any sort
Speaker 3: of high stakes testimony. You know, if if you're a
Speaker 3: subject matter expert and you know the material cold, you
Speaker 3: might not prepare that much. I mean you might. You
Speaker 3: might do this all the time. There are a lot
Speaker 3: of people that testif fight pretty regularly and just kind
Speaker 3: of ready for the job.
Speaker 2: Okay. From an outside position, it seems that some of
Speaker 2: these hearings are grandstanding there's an issue that's in the
Speaker 2: news and they have a hearing and we see some
Speaker 2: reports and then doesn't seem like anything happened.
Speaker 3: Sure, I think that happens quite a bit. You know,
Speaker 3: when you say nothing happens, there are There are really
Speaker 3: two purposes to a hearing, right You've got a like
Speaker 3: a legislative hearing, or like an issue intensive hearing about
Speaker 3: like AI and copyright for instance, That's not going to
Speaker 3: be on the front page of the paper. Most people
Speaker 3: aren't going to hear about it unless you're you know,
Speaker 3: unless you're really into this stuff. But if the Attorney
Speaker 3: general's testifying or you know, some se EO is testifying
Speaker 3: about some oil spill or something, the purpose of that
Speaker 3: isn't necessarily like, oh, we're always going to we have
Speaker 3: a bill in mind that we're going to move. It
Speaker 3: is you know, Congress has a rule as an oversight function, right,
Speaker 3: and so it's sort of looking out to these issues
Speaker 3: to see if potentially we need to get involved or
Speaker 3: we need to do something, we need to consider legislative action.
Speaker 3: That isn't always the case. Most of the cabinet secretaries
Speaker 3: had it's customary for them to come up you know
Speaker 3: once a year and testify. I think a lot of
Speaker 3: what you're talking about happens at those hearings.
Speaker 2: Okay, so but let's assume you know it's an issue
Speaker 2: that is going to have to be decided or you
Speaker 2: want to have decided. You have the hearing, Then what
Speaker 2: might happen to move forward towards legislation.
Speaker 3: You have the hearing that gives you the ability to
Speaker 3: know where the members are, what they're thinking. You hear
Speaker 3: from the witnesses about potential problems with the bills, different
Speaker 3: ways to write whatever bills you're considering on that topic,
Speaker 3: sort of go back process all that information, and then
Speaker 3: you'd probably consider putting one of those bills on the
Speaker 3: markup agenda and marking it up marketing and by marking
Speaker 3: it up, sorry I mean, I mean you sort of
Speaker 3: bring it before the committee, You debate the bill, you
Speaker 3: amend the bill, and then you sort of vote on
Speaker 3: it and decide whether or not it will leave the
Speaker 3: committee and go to the floor.
Speaker 2: And that could take on one end. It never happens.
Speaker 2: Never introduce how fast or how slow can this process
Speaker 2: be marking up the bill?
Speaker 3: So as fast as we could notice the markup where
Speaker 3: I think it's three business from now, have the mark
Speaker 3: up on the bill and send it to the floor,
Speaker 3: and it could be on the floor the next day,
Speaker 3: or you know, after a bill reports filed, so that
Speaker 3: that could all happen very quickly. Or you could mark
Speaker 3: up a bill that you send to the floor and
Speaker 3: it never sees action on the floor. Or you could
Speaker 3: introduce a bill and it never gets marked up.
Speaker 2: Okay, who writes the bill?
Speaker 3: Well, bills are always authored by members of Congress. You know,
Speaker 3: it's whatever member's name is on the bill. That's that's
Speaker 3: who introduced the bill, So they've written the bill.
Speaker 2: We hear about lobbyists writing the actual language. Is that
Speaker 2: a possibility?
Speaker 3: I don't think is it a possibility. Lobbyists certainly like
Speaker 3: make the case for how some length would you want
Speaker 3: to build might look like At the end of the day,
Speaker 3: these are people who have an interest in the outcome
Speaker 3: of a thing, and they know about their industry and
Speaker 3: they don't want you to overlook something, and so they
Speaker 3: might play some role in, you know, advising on how
Speaker 3: something's written. But members have to consent to you know,
Speaker 3: that language. Usually you take sort of an idea the
Speaker 3: way it works is you would take an idea that
Speaker 3: you have and you would work with a group we
Speaker 3: have called Legislative Council. There's a bunch of experts there
Speaker 3: that will sort of know how to how to draft
Speaker 3: the bills so that it, you know, can change the
Speaker 3: law in a way that the courts will interpret the
Speaker 3: way that you want them to.
Speaker 2: So what's your job?
Speaker 3: So I basically oversee policy for the Judiciary Committee. That
Speaker 3: means advising members on what bills we're going to move,
Speaker 3: helping to play a role and you know, talking to
Speaker 3: people about why bill is good, why it's bad, if
Speaker 3: it achieves what they want to achieve, what the outcome
Speaker 3: will be, the likelihood of success for the bill you know,
Speaker 3: on the floor or going into law. All that it's
Speaker 3: sort of being, you know, is staff at the committee.
Speaker 3: Our Our main role is advising members and helping guide
Speaker 3: guide the legislative agenda.
Speaker 2: So you it's not only IP you advise on everything
Speaker 2: the Judiciary Committee does.
Speaker 3: I advise on Yes, for the most part, We've got
Speaker 3: you know, sort of underneath me at the committee there
Speaker 3: are other subject matter experts on all these things. And
Speaker 3: you know, I would say that I spend a lot
Speaker 3: of my time in the antitrust and IP space. That's
Speaker 3: where I spend most of my time.
Speaker 2: Okay, So in this department, who do you report to?
Speaker 3: Miss it? Everybody that works for the committee reports to
Speaker 3: the chair. Okay, so I worked for all the members
Speaker 3: of the committee, but we report to the chair.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you're the you're the head guy in policy.
Speaker 3: I think that's that's fair.
Speaker 2: And you're an attorney. How many attorneys work for you?
Speaker 3: There are on staff about one hundred attorneys. I'm reluctant
Speaker 3: to say that these people work for me, but work
Speaker 3: with me. You know, eighty ish.
Speaker 2: People, and are they all attorneys?
Speaker 3: The vast majority of them are attorneys?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Okay, So let's go back to something you brought up, Ai.
Speaker 2: So I remember, back when you were a little kid,
Speaker 2: they had hearings on Napster and ultimately the issue was
Speaker 2: decided by courts that Master was copyright infringement based on
Speaker 2: a centralized database. Then we had Khazah, Then we had lockers,
Speaker 2: and then we had Daniel Leck came up with a
Speaker 2: good model for streaming, and the rest is history. If
Speaker 2: I'm in tech, should I be looking for a legislative solution?
Speaker 2: Or do I say, A, these issues are going to
Speaker 2: work out anyway, or I should find a business solution.
Speaker 3: When it comes to AI, it's it's kind of like a.
Speaker 3: I think the issue is multi dimensional and it depends
Speaker 3: what problem you're trying to solve for right, there are
Speaker 3: definitely some people in tech that are saying you need
Speaker 3: to regulate AI. Some of those people are incumbent players
Speaker 3: who sort of are in at the ground floor at AI,
Speaker 3: and there's concern that the regulations that they want might help,
Speaker 3: you know, of protect their incumbency there there. You know,
Speaker 3: if we're talking about music and AI, I think it's
Speaker 3: a it's a different conversation. You know, you've got sort
Speaker 3: of the Copyright Office who's looking at these issues and
Speaker 3: there I think soon going to put out some recommendations
Speaker 3: about how they're thinking about AI. You've got the course
Speaker 3: looking at this in terms of what is fair use,
Speaker 3: what is not fair use, and you know AI training
Speaker 3: models and how that will work, you know. And then
Speaker 3: I think you've got Congress taking up questions related to
Speaker 3: protecting voice and likeness and to some extent like record
Speaker 3: keeping and transparency. You know, these are all issues that
Speaker 3: are that are hot right now. I don't think that
Speaker 3: the situation we're in today is unlike you know what
Speaker 3: happened in nineteen ninety nine with Napster. We I've been
Speaker 3: working on music issues for almost a decade now on
Speaker 3: on Capitol Hill, and uh, it went from a year
Speaker 3: ago I would hear about AI every couple of months
Speaker 3: or someone would want to come talk about it. This year,
Speaker 3: it feels like every day people want to come talk
Speaker 3: about AI. I think people are people are really concerned
Speaker 3: and they want to get in front of this. I
Speaker 3: think that they don't want a second Napster situation to unfold.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you say you've been working on music issues
Speaker 2: for ten years. What are some of the music issues
Speaker 2: or what are the music issues you're working on.
Speaker 3: Well, in the last ten years, the biggest thing was
Speaker 3: definitely the Music Monetization Act that we got signed in
Speaker 3: a lot in twenty eighteen. You know, you get like
Speaker 3: once in a generation, you get a big piece of
Speaker 3: copyright legislation like the Music Monerornization Act, and so that
Speaker 3: was something that was almost you know, a decade and
Speaker 3: a half in the making. Really, the issues that led
Speaker 3: to that came from streaming that that was just a
Speaker 3: massive accomplishment that I think brought everyone together. We passed
Speaker 3: it out of the House unanimously, went out of the
Speaker 3: Senate unanimously. That was a product of years of hard
Speaker 3: work by a lot of people. Today, the issues, it's
Speaker 3: like AI and people just trying to figure out what
Speaker 3: to do. A lot of these questions are novel. People
Speaker 3: are confused, people are scared, they're they're looking for some
Speaker 3: certainty and to see if Congress is going to do something.
Speaker 2: Music Modernization Act, how'd you get that over the finish line.
Speaker 3: Well, these issues we're talking that was the the centerpiece
Speaker 3: of that bill was fixing the mechanical license process, you know,
Speaker 3: and this is this is something that I'm sure most
Speaker 3: of your listeners know, but you know the mechanical license
Speaker 3: goes back to the piano role. Right. We created this
Speaker 3: in nineteen oh nine after you know, sheet music was
Speaker 3: the only way you sold music in America, right, sold
Speaker 3: sheet music. And that's how you know songwriters, publishers paid money.
Speaker 3: Someone who vents the piano roll wax cylinder case goes
Speaker 3: up to the Supreme Court and the chord is basically
Speaker 3: like this is not a musical work, you know, this
Speaker 3: isn't cheap music. We can't, we won't grant protection to this.
Speaker 3: So Congress steps in and they say they create a
Speaker 3: protection for a mechanical work, like a reproduction, you know,
Speaker 3: a mechanical reproduction of the musical work. It works out,
Speaker 3: you know, I think there was like a two cent
Speaker 3: rate in place at the beginning. This stays in place,
Speaker 3: I think until nineteen seventy six. They increased it a
Speaker 3: little bit, but the mechanical royalty wasn't something people talked about.
Speaker 3: There's talk of even getting rid of it at some point,
Speaker 3: and then in the streaming era it becomes a massive problem.
Speaker 3: You know, back in two thousand and four, people were
Speaker 3: talking about all the issues that would they would come
Speaker 3: of the problems with the mechanical because what was what
Speaker 3: happens is or what did happen? Pre mma was if
Speaker 3: you wanted to mechanically and that's sort of an outdated term,
Speaker 3: even though you know it's not piano rules anymore, reproduce
Speaker 3: the work. You basically told the copyright office you were
Speaker 3: going to do this, and you you know, you paid
Speaker 3: for that, the right to reproduce it. Well with streaming,
Speaker 3: all of the streams and all of the songs. It's
Speaker 3: just this massive deluge of streaming led to these notices
Speaker 3: of intent flooding the Copyright Office. They couldn't keep up.
Speaker 3: People weren't getting paid.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 3: It was a real mess, and it stayed that way
Speaker 3: for quite some time until twenty eighteen when we passed
Speaker 3: the Music Monetization Act, which created like a single entity,
Speaker 3: the Music Licensing Collective, which essentially deals with all these
Speaker 3: deals with all these issues.
Speaker 2: Now, okay, we talk about the Copyright Department setting rates
Speaker 2: and increases. How does that work?
Speaker 3: So the Copyright Office has a three judge panel called
Speaker 3: the Copyright Royalty Board or the CRB. They're charged with
Speaker 3: sort of taking into account all evidence, figuring out rates
Speaker 3: for certain proceedings, basically finding agreement among parties after they
Speaker 3: make their case. That is the process we were talking
Speaker 3: about with Spotify. That was a twenty twenty two agreement.
Speaker 3: I think it was Phono Records for I think is
Speaker 3: the name of that proceeding where you know they came
Speaker 3: to this agreement that now is obviously back in the
Speaker 3: news as a problem.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's switch gears. You say you also have oversight
Speaker 2: into antitrust. We have this dog case against Live Nation
Speaker 2: and its Ticketmaster subsidiary. To what degree is Congress involved
Speaker 2: in that?
Speaker 3: It's the situation Congress is monitoring. There's a lot of
Speaker 3: interest in what happened Ticketmaster, what happened with Taylor Swift.
Speaker 3: But DOJ is basically suing Ticketmaster under existing law. So
Speaker 3: that's not something that they'll be able to talk about
Speaker 3: publicly or really come testify about until the case is settled.
Speaker 3: Something people have a lot of interest in. People are
Speaker 3: saying good things, are bad things about it, But we
Speaker 3: don't have a lot of interest in like that suit
Speaker 3: in particular. Congress is legislating, I would say, around other
Speaker 3: issues in that space. It was just a couple of
Speaker 3: weeks ago we passed something called the Ticket Act, which
Speaker 3: basically provides for all in ticket pricing, so you know,
Speaker 3: all the fees and everything is the price you see.
Speaker 3: The price you see is the price you get. That
Speaker 3: passed the House, you know, I think it likely will
Speaker 3: pass the Senate, but it hasn't yet.
Speaker 2: What will it take to pass the Senate.
Speaker 3: I think they're working out some disagreements. There's a there's
Speaker 3: a Ticket Fairness Act, which is different than the Ticket Act.
Speaker 3: You know, there are issues related to like filthy URLs
Speaker 3: and speculative ticketing, and I think people want those added,
Speaker 3: and so that's part of the process, is figuring out
Speaker 3: like what we'll make it into the final bill that
Speaker 3: the Senate passes. I think, like we talked about earlier,
Speaker 3: they'll pass something. It'll probably be a little different than
Speaker 3: what passed the House, and it'll come back to us.
Speaker 3: But that that bill passed that, I don't know if
Speaker 3: there was any opposition to it. It was like four
Speaker 3: hundred and sum, you know, to a very small number
Speaker 3: of people.
Speaker 2: So on many issues, and ticketing being one of them,
Speaker 2: they're opposing views. How does the committee deal with those
Speaker 2: opposing views? And how do I try to get my
Speaker 2: side across as opposed to the other side.
Speaker 3: We deal with them by providing a forum for people
Speaker 3: to argue and debate and try to convince their colleagues
Speaker 3: that they're right and their colleague is wrong, or vice versa.
Speaker 3: I think if you want your side to prevail, you
Speaker 3: probably come with better arguments, So you spend time with
Speaker 3: your colleagues convincing them you know you're wrong to think
Speaker 3: this way, think that way about this issue. I'm just like,
Speaker 3: that's really.
Speaker 2: It okay, But that's all within the committee.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: If I'm a company external to the committee, how do
Speaker 2: I get my position argued by a member of the committee.
Speaker 3: You meet with them and make the case. It helps
Speaker 3: if you're from the district, you have a connection to
Speaker 3: the member, relationship with them, and make the case. Most
Speaker 3: people have a scattershot approach. They'll meet with all the
Speaker 3: members and hope that someone will be their champion.
Speaker 2: You know, there's been a lot of discussion about certainly
Speaker 2: tech companies who didn't have lobbyists and hired lobbyists. The RIUBLEA,
Speaker 2: the Recording Industry Association of America, is essentially a lobbying outfit.
Speaker 2: To what degree are lobbyists important in getting your side
Speaker 2: of the argument heard?
Speaker 3: If you're a member, you mean, and you want to
Speaker 3: make an argument, how important are lobbyists to like advancing
Speaker 3: that argument.
Speaker 2: Yes, or even from externally. I'm a company and I
Speaker 2: want to get my representative to hear my argument, to
Speaker 2: put forth my argument right.
Speaker 3: I think the lobbyists play a sort of function of
Speaker 3: they probably know the issue. They're spending all day thinking
Speaker 3: about this, building arguments, writing memos, they're willing to go
Speaker 3: talk to other people. For you, as a member or
Speaker 3: a staffer, you're probably working on a thousand things that
Speaker 3: can't dedicate all of your time to that. And so
Speaker 3: I think if you're thinking the same way, you know
Speaker 3: someone from a company is thinking that that could be helpful.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me put it in a different way. If I'm
Speaker 2: somebody in Missouri who has a business is successful, and
Speaker 2: I have no presence in Washington, will it behooved me
Speaker 2: to hire a lobbyist or some company washing just to
Speaker 2: make the connection to the people who are addressing or
Speaker 2: could address my issue.
Speaker 3: Sure, I think that's probably the normal thing.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: I've never been in that position where I had to,
Speaker 3: you know, come calling on Congress, but I think that's
Speaker 3: probably what most people do. You know, you're living in
Speaker 3: the Midwest, there is some problem with some law law
Speaker 3: that you think is hurting your company. You think that
Speaker 3: Congress should look at changing that. You're probably going to
Speaker 3: look to retain some law firm or lobbyist in DC
Speaker 3: that can help you navigate the process. That's right.
Speaker 2: So in the Judicial Committee, what music entertainment issues are
Speaker 2: presently being debated.
Speaker 3: Well, certainly all of these AI issues are being debated.
Speaker 3: That's that's a really nascent conversation. In some ways, we're
Speaker 3: taking a lot of testimony. We're hearing from a lot
Speaker 3: of folks, what what could happen in the future, what
Speaker 3: people want us to do. That's there. You know, there
Speaker 3: is this issue of the terrestrial performance, right. This is
Speaker 3: something that has been around for you know, fifty one
Speaker 3: hundred years. You know, the sound recording artists basically say
Speaker 3: they should get paid for being played on radio and
Speaker 3: they're not. Radio obviously has a different take on it,
Speaker 3: and people are split. But that that's something that's that's
Speaker 3: always alive. Uh, And I think we're having a hearing
Speaker 3: on that issue in a couple of weeks.
Speaker 2: In any other music, copyright, entertainment issues that are either
Speaker 2: actively or floating around the committee.
Speaker 3: It's really it's all it's been all a I uh,
Speaker 3: you know, almost all the time. This Congress, I mean,
Speaker 3: the ticketmaster thing is a live discussion that that people
Speaker 3: are people are having. But outside of that, relatively you know,
Speaker 3: relatively calm.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you know, Congress does not have a reputation
Speaker 2: for moving quickly, certainly in the technological sphere, will movement
Speaker 2: in the AI regulation area come from Congress or will
Speaker 2: come from an external source?
Speaker 3: Well it Congress has said, uh, this Congress, We've got
Speaker 3: this AI task Force's equal representation of Republicans and Democrats.
Speaker 3: They're holding all these meetings, hearing from you know, the
Speaker 3: defense industry, that you know, tech companies, everybody's coming in
Speaker 3: for these sort of forums. And I think this panel
Speaker 3: at the end of the year will make some recommendations
Speaker 3: about what they think Congress should do on these issues.
Speaker 3: You have the administration of doing things via executive order
Speaker 3: looking at you know, there are things that executive branch
Speaker 3: agencies can be doing with AI. Senator Schumer put out
Speaker 3: a report about AI. There's a lot of happening. How
Speaker 3: asked all of that will come together? Hard to tell.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure. I don't think anything will happen before
Speaker 3: the end of the year. I don't think anyone would
Speaker 3: disagree with that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an issue with even the players can't agree
Speaker 2: on and within the committee. Does this break down by
Speaker 2: political parties or is everybody basically you know, learning and
Speaker 2: thinking what the best thing to do is.
Speaker 3: People are learning and thinking about what the best thing
Speaker 3: to do is on AI hardly any like tech issues,
Speaker 3: IP issues, they don't break down on party lines. They
Speaker 3: really it's there's a whole almost an entirely different paradigm
Speaker 3: for thinking about like copyright protection and what people have.
Speaker 3: You know, some people would say more it should be cheaper,
Speaker 3: the government shouldn't provide as much protection for creative work.
Speaker 3: So other people are like, that's crazy. You know, we
Speaker 3: need we are way under compensating, you know, creative artists.
Speaker 3: We should really increase, increase the rights people have. I
Speaker 3: think it sort of breaks down along along those lines
Speaker 3: more than more than anything else.
Speaker 2: Okay, you're saying these hearings, these are traditional hearings that
Speaker 2: we're talking about with every member gets five minutes or
Speaker 2: might I come in and speak to five representatives? What
Speaker 2: are all these hearings you're referencing on AI?
Speaker 3: These are not hearings. This is a what we'd call
Speaker 3: a task force, and so it is a more informal thing.
Speaker 3: They've got some rules in place where people come in
Speaker 3: and I think they give them five minutes. It might
Speaker 3: be ten, but it's it's a more informal sort of
Speaker 3: tribunal for hearing for hear hearing out the issues, and
Speaker 3: I think a more freewheeling discussion. They try and you know,
Speaker 3: keep some rules in place. People are still asking questions
Speaker 3: of the witness, but it's a little looser and I
Speaker 3: don't think there's a record being built. It's more of
Speaker 3: a you know, a place where people can just talk
Speaker 3: more freely.
Speaker 2: And will this be you talk about a record? Will
Speaker 2: this be on c spin, will there be any report?
Speaker 2: Or this is basically in chambers.
Speaker 3: It's basically in chambers. Basically in chambers for now. But
Speaker 3: while that's happening, all of the various committees are holding
Speaker 3: hearings on these issues and you know, talking through talking
Speaker 3: through them on the record and having legislative hearings and
Speaker 3: putting bills forward.
Speaker 2: Now, the average person can't understand what AI is, even
Speaker 2: though they're using AI every day on their phones, et cetera.
Speaker 2: You know, these committees address a million issues. To what
Speaker 2: degree are the individuals up to speed on some of
Speaker 2: these issues.
Speaker 3: It would surprise you, I think how knowledge jible some
Speaker 3: members can become. Uh And I think it would also
Speaker 3: surprise you at you know, how little knowledge some people have.
Speaker 3: The really great thing about working in Congress is it's
Speaker 3: really easy to get information. There are a lot of
Speaker 3: people that want to help you understand. We've got the
Speaker 3: Congressional Research Service there staff, You've got sort of legislative
Speaker 3: counsel to advise you on how bills are going to
Speaker 3: be written. So anyone that wants to learn can learn
Speaker 3: a lot of really smart people working on these things,
Speaker 3: and that the hearings are really there to, you know,
Speaker 3: to help you learn. And I think, frankly, that's why
Speaker 3: they're doing some of this is, as you said in Chambers,
Speaker 3: because these issues are novel, they're complex. People want the
Speaker 3: opportunity to, you know, like ask what might be perceived
Speaker 3: as a stupid question.
Speaker 2: Let's go back to antitrust for a minute. You have
Speaker 2: the DOJ, and there's doing Live Nation. You have Lena Kahan,
Speaker 2: and you have the Congress. How do those responsibilities to
Speaker 2: divide up into what degree do they overlap?
Speaker 3: So put it simply, Congress writes the laws and then
Speaker 3: Lena and Jonathan enforced the laws. You've got Lena Khanna,
Speaker 3: you noted at the FTC, which is a commission of
Speaker 3: five people currently controlled by by Lena, who used to
Speaker 3: work at Before she was there, she worked at the
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee, and they've got a big piece of anti
Speaker 3: trust and they've got a lot of other responsibilities at
Speaker 3: the FTC also, and then you have the DOJ, which
Speaker 3: is run by the DOJ Anti Trust Division, which is
Speaker 3: run by Jonathan Canter and just doing anti trust.
Speaker 2: So how'd you get this job?
Speaker 3: How do I get that? You know, Bob? I came
Speaker 3: to Capitol Hill in two thousand and eleven and I thought,
Speaker 3: you know, I like DC, I like policy work. It's
Speaker 3: important to understand Capitol Hill. I'll stay here for one
Speaker 3: year and then go do something else. And you know,
Speaker 3: almost fourteen years later, I'm still here, still kicking around.
Speaker 3: It's been a lot of fun. It's been a lot
Speaker 3: of fun.
Speaker 2: Well, let's go back to the beginning. Where you're from.
Speaker 3: From Pittsburgh, outside of Pittsburgh, Cranberry Township.
Speaker 2: Okay, And what your parents do for a living?
Speaker 3: My parents do. My mother it's like a sales rep.
Speaker 3: And my father was an engineer, got civil engineer, doing
Speaker 3: energy stuff.
Speaker 2: And how many kids in the family, just.
Speaker 3: Me and my brother.
Speaker 2: What's your brother up to?
Speaker 3: My brother lives out there in LA with you. He's
Speaker 3: he's doing like the communications work for a hospital or something.
Speaker 2: Okay, did you say with the yalies? Who'd you say?
Speaker 3: No? With a hospital?
Speaker 2: With a hospital? Okay?
Speaker 3: Communications were with a hospital. Sorry. And you go to
Speaker 3: college where I go to George Mason down here?
Speaker 2: Any particular reason you go to George Mason.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I was on the debate team at George Mason.
Speaker 3: They had a great debate program, and so that was
Speaker 3: kind of what drove me down there. I wanted to
Speaker 3: be in DC, so everything kind of lined up. It
Speaker 3: was a great experience.
Speaker 2: Did you go directly from undergrad to law school?
Speaker 3: No? I, like I said, I got this.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I got a job on Capitol Hill, thought it was
Speaker 3: not going to be awesome, and that I'd go to
Speaker 3: law school right afterward. I was on Capitol Hill for
Speaker 3: about four years, realized I wasn't going to leave, and
Speaker 3: made the decision to go to law school at night,
Speaker 3: also at George Mason while working on the hill.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you graduated from college what year.
Speaker 3: Two thousand and four or two thousand and eight? Sorry,
Speaker 3: got there in four graduated in o eight.
Speaker 2: How long did it take you to go to law
Speaker 2: school at night?
Speaker 3: About four years.
Speaker 2: It's a lot of work, okay. So what happens when
Speaker 2: you start working on Capitol Hill and it evolves into
Speaker 2: where you are now, what's your first job? And then
Speaker 2: where do you go from there? Sure?
Speaker 3: So I got there in twenty and eleven and I
Speaker 3: worked for Dary Lisa, who's now the IP Subcommittee chair
Speaker 3: in like a totally different role at the he was
Speaker 3: at the Oversight Committee at the time. I got to
Speaker 3: know him pretty well. In twenty fourteen, he asked me
Speaker 3: to come be his life legislative director, so I sort
Speaker 3: of managed his whole legislative shop while he was the
Speaker 3: chair of the IP Subcommittee and then Judi Charry Committee
Speaker 3: after that.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's be a little more granular. What's your very
Speaker 2: first job and how do you get it?
Speaker 3: Very first job on Capitol Hill was as a professional
Speaker 3: staff member on the Oversight Committee, which at the time
Speaker 3: was chaired by mister Isaa.
Speaker 2: How do you get a job like that?
Speaker 3: You know, it's how you get a job on Capitol
Speaker 3: Hill is a funny thing. You got to be in
Speaker 3: the right place at the right time. Congress had just
Speaker 3: changed and the twenty ten cycle. I knew some people
Speaker 3: from George Mason that were there and sort of expressed
Speaker 3: some interest and potentially going to Capitol Hill, like I said,
Speaker 3: to get the experience, got an interview, and to get
Speaker 3: the job. And the thing about these changes is like
Speaker 3: you could have to hire twenty thirty forty people within
Speaker 3: a couple of months to staff up and so right place,
Speaker 3: right time, that really really makes a difference.
Speaker 2: So what did you actually do when you started? What
Speaker 2: did I do? So?
Speaker 3: This was it was the Oversight Committee. So at that
Speaker 3: time there was a lot of like oversight of the
Speaker 3: GM bailout and of the tart program and of the
Speaker 3: stimulus program and where's the money going, how's it being spent?
Speaker 3: Asking questions of people. It was like a lot of
Speaker 3: a lot of that stuff, less like policy work.
Speaker 2: Okay, what were you doing?
Speaker 3: I was doing that. I was you know, like writing
Speaker 3: letters to the you know, companies that got bailout money.
Speaker 3: I was talking to members about what we found in
Speaker 3: the documents that we got from these company he is
Speaker 3: about the government funds they received it. A lot of
Speaker 3: writing letters and sort of you know, talking talking to
Speaker 3: people about how they were like waste for out and abuse.
Speaker 4: Basically, how do you become so tight with ISA from working?
Speaker 3: I didn't know him at all. When I uh took
Speaker 3: the job at the at the Oversight Committee, didn't didn't
Speaker 3: know him hardly at all. It was probably a year
Speaker 3: or you know, it was probably a year or so
Speaker 3: before he even knew my name. But over the years
Speaker 3: we've become, you know, very close. He gave the blessing
Speaker 3: at my wedding last year. He's I consider him a
Speaker 3: good friend.
Speaker 2: Okay, Isa happens to be a Republican. Does that have
Speaker 2: anything to do with you getting the job or you
Speaker 2: just working in this committee and he gets a takes
Speaker 2: a liking to you.
Speaker 3: I'm working in this committee. He takes a liking to
Speaker 3: me and is working for the majority controlled by Republicans.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 2: I used to make his money in Carl Alarms. Does
Speaker 2: he ever talk about that?
Speaker 3: He does talk about that Bob He you know, he's
Speaker 3: the voice of the viper Carl Alarm, the like step
Speaker 3: away from the car protected by Viper, that's his voice.
Speaker 3: He had. I think he's got thirty seven patents or something.
Speaker 3: He like, he's a really really smart guy that knows
Speaker 3: intellectual property. He was actually, I think for a while
Speaker 3: involved in a copyright lawsuit against Shack because Shack had
Speaker 3: used part of the protected by viper bit in a song,
Speaker 3: and so yeah, that's that's what story loves itself.
Speaker 2: But yeah, okay, let's go back. You're working, you become
Speaker 2: tight with Isa, and he gives you what job and
Speaker 2: what are the responsibilities there?
Speaker 3: I go to his office to be his legislative director.
Speaker 3: So on Capitol Hill, basically you either worked for a member,
Speaker 3: and a member personal office has got like about twelve
Speaker 3: staffers in it, you know, a chief of staff, a
Speaker 3: legislative director, other people working on specific issues, or or
Speaker 3: you work for a committee where you're sort of more
Speaker 3: of a subject matter expert. So I go to IS's
Speaker 3: personal office to be his legislative director, basically oversee the
Speaker 3: legislative portfolio. It was during this time we worked on
Speaker 3: the Music Modernization Act. He wrote the Classics Act, which
Speaker 3: was a part of the Music Modernization Act, which basically
Speaker 3: worked to present or protect rather pre seventy two sound recordings.
Speaker 3: This was a you know, legacy issue that had been
Speaker 3: around for a while.
Speaker 2: You say he wrote who actually wrote it?
Speaker 3: Well, I guess I wrote it in the sense that, yeah,
Speaker 3: he had long wanted to take care of this issue.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of music from the fifties and sixties.
Speaker 3: He really likes you'd hear from these people. He wanted
Speaker 3: to solve this issue for them. Sort of directed me
Speaker 3: to find a solution. I talked to a bunch of people,
Speaker 3: you know, and concluding this, you know, people in the
Speaker 3: music community, music distributors, and try and find a way
Speaker 3: to write the bill the best way that we can.
Speaker 3: You talk with led council about you know, what part
Speaker 3: of chapter seventeen this belongs in, and how you write
Speaker 3: the thing. So the course are going to interpret it
Speaker 3: the right way?
Speaker 2: Okay, Daryl comes to you, says, I want to address
Speaker 2: this issue. How long do you come back with a
Speaker 2: piece of writing.
Speaker 3: He was one of the things the next day. But
Speaker 3: it probably you know, it depends on the complexity of
Speaker 3: the issue. In that case, I mean, it took weeks
Speaker 3: months of talking talking to folks about the right way
Speaker 3: to do this.
Speaker 2: Okay, So you gather all your information, you write it.
Speaker 2: What literally happens next.
Speaker 3: You write it, give it to him. He signs the bill,
Speaker 3: He walks it over to what we'd call the hopper,
Speaker 3: you know, in the house. You put the bill in
Speaker 3: the hopper, so that it's filed, it'll get an HR
Speaker 3: number whatever it was, you know, HR thirteen fifty nine,
Speaker 3: and it's just the you know number of it's the
Speaker 3: last bill introduced at that point in the Congress is
Speaker 3: the number on the bill, and then it's sitting there
Speaker 3: and everyone knows it's been introduced. What you do then,
Speaker 3: or you might do some of this before you file it,
Speaker 3: is you basically try and get other members of Congress
Speaker 3: to co sponsor your bill. So, yeah, go to other
Speaker 3: people that you think might be into this issue and
Speaker 3: you kind of pitch them on it to build up
Speaker 3: co sponsors. And that's a really important part of the
Speaker 3: process because if you have other members basically saying I'm
Speaker 3: totally on board with this, it gives you know, the
Speaker 3: speaker and leadership confidence that this thing has support. You know, generally,
Speaker 3: the more co sponsors the better. If you want to
Speaker 3: be an original co sponsor, you would sign on, you know,
Speaker 3: before before the bill is introduced, which basically signifies you know,
Speaker 3: you had some role in creating the bill or coming
Speaker 3: up with the idea.
Speaker 2: Okay, when you're working with ISA and yours legislative director,
Speaker 2: how many people in the office are in the legislative area.
Speaker 3: How many people. There are probably five people under me
Speaker 3: in that office, and sort of divided up by issue area.
Speaker 3: You know, someone might have like energy and environment and healthcare,
Speaker 3: and someone else might have, you know, taxes and veterans affairs,
Speaker 3: and you know, any manner everything. I mean, all of
Speaker 3: the business before the House, which is all of the
Speaker 3: business of the American public, is really that exists in
Speaker 3: every congressional office because at some point you're gonna have
Speaker 3: to vote on some bill related to that.
Speaker 2: Okay, So what was your next job after that?
Speaker 3: So back to so is a rich hires And then
Speaker 3: for me, it was where basically where I'm at now.
Speaker 2: But didn't Isa lose an election and then come back.
Speaker 3: He he's very very sensitive about this, Bob. He did
Speaker 3: not lose an election. He retired near the end of
Speaker 3: twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: Okay, then let's just accept the language not important to me.
Speaker 2: If he is out of Congress, Andy comes back to
Speaker 2: what degreed does he lose or regain his seniority and positions?
Speaker 3: That's a great question. You keep your seniority, So even
Speaker 3: if you left ten years ago, but before then you'd
Speaker 3: spent ten years on the Judiciary Committee. You've got more
Speaker 3: seniority than anyone with less than ten years of seniority
Speaker 3: on Judiciary Committee. He's sort of come back.
Speaker 2: So let's assume let's say I'm out of office and
Speaker 2: I have ten years and I come back. Am I
Speaker 2: immediately able to get on the Judicial your committee? Or
Speaker 2: might they say no?
Speaker 3: They could say no, but it's not likely they're almost
Speaker 3: certainly going to put you back, especially with that level
Speaker 3: of seniority. There's a deference there. They might even, you know,
Speaker 3: if they had to, might like kick a freshman off
Speaker 3: the committee.
Speaker 2: Okay, so Isa is out of d C. Tell me
Speaker 2: how you transition into the next job.
Speaker 3: I say, is out of d C. I was trying
Speaker 3: to figure out what to do and got a call
Speaker 3: from now Chairman Jim Jordan who basically said, hey, I,
Speaker 3: you know, come work for me. Could you could use
Speaker 3: your help? And ultimately I said yes.
Speaker 2: How did Jim Jordan know who you were.
Speaker 3: From being around the committee, being around Capitol Hill?
Speaker 2: So when he comes to ask you to come work
Speaker 2: for you, what year and what is that job?
Speaker 3: That job was? This is the end of twenty eighteen,
Speaker 3: and I hadn't made a decision I think it was
Speaker 3: December of twenty eighteen. You know, I said, was leaving
Speaker 3: at the end of so I would have been out
Speaker 3: of a job in a matter of weeks and that
Speaker 3: that's kind of that's when he called, and that's when
Speaker 3: I said, yes, he basically tells it. There's some of
Speaker 3: this gets strangely like it gets a little personal, but
Speaker 3: he basically said, hey. I said, hey, I like music stuff,
Speaker 3: I like eyepiece stuff, you know, I like a lot
Speaker 3: of things that are going on. He said, come work
Speaker 3: for me. You can do that stuff, you know, kind
Speaker 3: of whatever, you know, whatever you want to do. At
Speaker 3: that point he was he was cool if I'm yeah.
Speaker 3: At the time, I had a lot of friends working
Speaker 3: there for him. My father was really sick and I
Speaker 3: knew Chairman Jordan pretty well, and he was kind of like, hey,
Speaker 3: that like, come work here, the accommodating of everything going
Speaker 3: on in your life. And so that was kind of
Speaker 3: where the decision came from.
Speaker 2: What happened with your father's illness.
Speaker 3: Well, he passed away from cancer that in like the
Speaker 3: beginning of twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: During just wow heavy losing a p It.
Speaker 3: Was, yeah, obviously not ideal, but you know, very sad,
Speaker 3: but it happened in January of twenty twenty, so I
Speaker 3: think it was a blessing that it sort of all
Speaker 3: happened pre COVID so we didn't have to like deal
Speaker 3: with the like that whole situation.
Speaker 2: Okay, your father passes. How does your situation evolve at
Speaker 2: the Judicial Committee?
Speaker 3: It it, I mean, largely stays the same. I mean
Speaker 3: I really love these issues at that point, I mean
Speaker 3: it was it's the job I have. Now I have,
Speaker 3: you know, no idea how long I'll keep doing this,
Speaker 3: but for now it's awesome. I mean you're right in
Speaker 3: the middle of everything. You get to interact with just
Speaker 3: about everybody and learn cool stuff. I think you really
Speaker 3: get to have an opportunity to have have an impact
Speaker 3: on on the legislative process on where things go.
Speaker 2: Okay, you're the head guy. Now when Jim Jordan hires you,
Speaker 2: does he hire you as the head guy?
Speaker 3: Is it like the one of there's like the policy guy. Yeah?
Speaker 2: Okay, So how long was your predecessor in this role?
Speaker 3: So before Jordan was chaired the committee? Now there was
Speaker 3: chair of the committee, and I think for quite some time,
Speaker 3: like I mean, you know, ten to fifteen years.
Speaker 2: So let's just assume for the sake of discussion, Jim
Speaker 2: Jordan continues to chair this committee. At what point would
Speaker 2: you pull the ripcord?
Speaker 3: That's a question I get almost every day. I have
Speaker 3: no idea. I don't really make plans. You know that
Speaker 3: this isn't forever. I enjoy every day I have this job.
Speaker 3: I think it's great. Most people don't stay on the
Speaker 3: hill as long as I have, but the average tenures
Speaker 3: something like three four years. Most people, believe it or not,
Speaker 3: are much younger than me. But for now, I'm not
Speaker 3: to be here. I don't have I don't have plans
Speaker 3: to leave.
Speaker 2: Okay, So theoretically, could there be a move, whether it
Speaker 2: be you or someone in the same role, from the
Speaker 2: Judiciary Committee policy person to another job in Congress, Senate,
Speaker 2: the government somewhere. Does it ever work that way? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Well, like Lena Lena Cone you mentioned he was a
Speaker 3: Judiciary Committee and now running the Federal Trade Commission. People move,
Speaker 3: move around all the time.
Speaker 2: And how come people only tend to last for three
Speaker 2: or four years.
Speaker 3: Uh, it's a lot of hours. It's not easy work.
Speaker 3: I personally, I like the pace. I like being busy,
Speaker 3: but I mean you have weeks where you're working. You know,
Speaker 3: it could be eighteen hours a day, and then the
Speaker 3: next week it's much slower and much calmer because the
Speaker 3: members of Congress will leave town. I personally really like
Speaker 3: that pace. The ebb and flow is fun for me.
Speaker 3: It's not for everyone. I think a lot of people
Speaker 3: want to leave and make more money the hill notoriously
Speaker 3: doesn't you know you're not going to get rich doing this.
Speaker 2: Do you have the kind of job? Or people in
Speaker 2: Washington but work peripheral to the government are recruiting you
Speaker 2: and say come work to the other sign.
Speaker 3: Over the years, sure people have made overtures about like, oh,
Speaker 3: it'd be great if you came and worked here or there.
Speaker 3: You know, nothing has struck my fancy, like I said,
Speaker 3: and I'm really happy where I am.
Speaker 2: Okay, And how much of your work is supervisory or
Speaker 2: work you're doing independently.
Speaker 3: I would say I bet seventy five percent of it
Speaker 3: is supervisory sort of talking to people about what they're doing,
Speaker 3: reviewing their work, guiding them, giving advice, giving counseled. It's
Speaker 3: a lot of that.
Speaker 2: Okay, everybody on the Judiciary Committee know you yes, if
Speaker 2: there are four hundred and thirty five members of Congress.
Speaker 2: How many of them might know you.
Speaker 3: More than fifty and less than four hundred.
Speaker 2: Would Joe Biden possibly know who you are or whoever's
Speaker 2: president at that moment? Uh?
Speaker 3: Definitely not, definitely not.
Speaker 2: Is there an equivalent in the Senate? And what do
Speaker 2: we do interact with that person here?
Speaker 3: We interact with the Senate quite You kind of have
Speaker 3: to to make sure you're on the same page. Would
Speaker 3: Joe Biden know that person? The answers almost definitely know,
Speaker 3: unless there's something I don't know.
Speaker 2: Okay, is it the kind of job like with Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Katzenberg when he was at Disney, If you don't come
Speaker 2: in on Saturday, don't even think about coming in on.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure I follow you well, if you don't
Speaker 3: come in on Saturday, Okay.
Speaker 2: What it means? Is it a seven day a week job?
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh, definitely definitely. It could be a three am
Speaker 3: on Sunday job. Yeah, you are. You're always on call?
Speaker 2: And how does one maintain a relationship with that kind
Speaker 2: of schedule.
Speaker 3: I have a very wonderful and understanding wife who's patient.
Speaker 3: She likes to say to your point, she says he's
Speaker 3: always working and never working. I think because I enjoy
Speaker 3: the work, you know what, I'm always doing it and
Speaker 3: kind of at this point, I've seen enough of the
Speaker 3: issues that I could. It's never really that taxing to
Speaker 3: sort of go to work and take care of something
Speaker 3: as it comes up.
Speaker 2: And are your friends civilians are people in the business,
Speaker 2: so to speak.
Speaker 3: Mixture of both. I mean, you don't work somewhere for
Speaker 3: fourteen years and not develop some friendships there. But I've
Speaker 3: got I've got a good number of civilian friends.
Speaker 2: Also. Okay, we live in an era where there's never
Speaker 2: been less respect for institutions. It's not only Congress, it's
Speaker 2: the government at large, it's attorneys. We could go on.
Speaker 2: What would you tell in response to people who say, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, uh, Congress is a body that is locked up,
Speaker 2: doesn't achieve anything, and roll their eyes.
Speaker 3: It is pretty locked up, right. I don't want to
Speaker 3: want to be cynical here. I mean it's locked up.
Speaker 3: It's hard to get things done. I think the founders
Speaker 3: wanted it to be hard to get things done right
Speaker 3: changing make you know, if changing the law were easy,
Speaker 3: I think that would be a that would be a problem.
Speaker 3: You know, and there I would say most of what
Speaker 3: you see is probably the worst of it all, you know,
Speaker 3: but what cable news shares and what you're seeing on
Speaker 3: Twitter from clips is like one percent of what's happening
Speaker 3: on Capitol Hill. The most of what's happening is good
Speaker 3: people trying to do the right thing for their constituents.
Speaker 2: Obviously members are elected, but how important are relationships in
Speaker 2: terms of getting ahead? You know, like in the entertainment business,
Speaker 2: you don't know anybody, you can't even start. Is it
Speaker 2: the same in DC?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: I think it is.
Speaker 3: You know, Reagan famously said DC's Hollywood for ugly people.
Speaker 3: It's it's the same thing. It's it's I mean, we
Speaker 3: are nothing except for the decisions that we make. Right.
Speaker 3: This is just a job where people are everything. You
Speaker 3: need other people to get anything done.
Speaker 2: And what issues might you see coming down the pike
Speaker 2: in the ip Era area.
Speaker 3: It's really hard to see past ip I mean for
Speaker 3: past Ai that that is the big thing that's happening
Speaker 3: right now. I don't know what happens after this. There
Speaker 3: is the people have talked about some tweaks to the
Speaker 3: Music Modernization Act, but that's kind of the that's not
Speaker 3: the kind of thing you're talking about though, in terms
Speaker 3: of big issues, it's it's really it's it's AI.
Speaker 2: And what is the breadth of what might be addressed
Speaker 2: legislatively on AI?
Speaker 3: So you know, when it comes to like economy wide
Speaker 3: AI that you're talking about, everything from like a GAO
Speaker 3: study on understanding AI might get passed by Congress to
Speaker 3: like full scaled, robust regulatory regime. I think that there
Speaker 3: is a a growing consensus that like it is premature
Speaker 3: to sort of regulate AI right now, that just given
Speaker 3: that this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't want to
Speaker 3: do anything to sort of hold back the United States
Speaker 3: that we don't know enough yet to jump to those
Speaker 3: kind of conclusions. In the music space, in particular, the
Speaker 3: conversations revolving around protecting you know, name, image and likeness,
Speaker 3: which is not really a copyright question. It's a trademark
Speaker 3: question more than anything else.
Speaker 2: And sort of.
Speaker 3: That's generally what's happening.
Speaker 2: So what would you tell to someone who wanted to
Speaker 2: work on Capitol Hill?
Speaker 3: Would they do it? And most people that want to
Speaker 3: do it this might surprise you and your listeners to hear,
Speaker 3: but over the years, I've met a lot of people
Speaker 3: that are like, I'd love to work on cap Hill
Speaker 3: and most of them do you know, if if it's
Speaker 3: something you want bad enough and you have coffee with
Speaker 3: enough people, the churned people leaving people coming is so
Speaker 3: great that like you'll find something to do.
Speaker 2: And to what degree does being an attorney help you?
Speaker 3: It's complicated a lot of people. I would say if
Speaker 3: you were to ask, like, what's the normal path on
Speaker 3: Capitol Hill? Uh, people are interns and then they are
Speaker 3: like staff assistants, and then legislative correspondence that a legislative assistant,
Speaker 3: then maybe a legislative director. Then maybe they'll go to committee.
Speaker 3: It's sort of this process of you know, learning learning
Speaker 3: the rope. There's nowhere to learn it unless you're there.
Speaker 3: If you're an attorney, it's probably harder to find a
Speaker 3: job on Capitol Hill because you probably want to go
Speaker 3: work at a committee. Those jobs are a little harder
Speaker 3: to get. But certainly it helps if you if you have,
Speaker 3: if you have your law degree to do the work.
Speaker 3: But I'm not sure it gives you like an advantage
Speaker 3: in getting up there.
Speaker 2: Okay, so what would you tell to someone who has
Speaker 2: an issue that they would like a legislative solution to.
Speaker 2: I'm somewhere, I'm in an industry, I see a problem.
Speaker 2: What would be my best step moving forward to ultimately
Speaker 2: get my case heard by Congress and hopefully get some
Speaker 2: action taken.
Speaker 3: I would tell that person to call me, but I
Speaker 3: would say, if you contact your representative's office, they're going
Speaker 3: to take the meeting. You'd be astounded at the number
Speaker 3: of letters offices reply to and the number of meetings
Speaker 3: people take. If you ask for a meeting and you
Speaker 3: don't get a reply, ask again and ask them who
Speaker 3: else you should talk to. You know, if you are
Speaker 3: a sophisticated, you know company that's having an issue, you
Speaker 3: probably are going to want to hire a law firm
Speaker 3: that just knows how Capitol Hill works. You know, they'll
Speaker 3: kind of direct you in the right, right right areas like, oh,
Speaker 3: don't go to that person you know that's a Democrat
Speaker 3: that will never agree with you, or don't go to
Speaker 3: that person they're not on any relevant committees, or you know,
Speaker 3: go to go to this person. Ideally, you probably want
Speaker 3: to get a meeting with the you know, chair of
Speaker 3: the relevant subcommittee or committee and see if they'll hear
Speaker 3: you out.
Speaker 2: And is being a pest a good thing or a
Speaker 2: bad thing?
Speaker 3: It can be both. I think it depends what kind
Speaker 3: of a pest you are. You know, the people that
Speaker 3: send like all caps emails every week. Uh, that's not
Speaker 3: a good strategy. Uh, you know, but people that are like, Hey,
Speaker 3: I'm a constituent, I've got this issue, can you help
Speaker 3: me out. If you don't get a reply, like, you're
Speaker 3: going to make the person who's reading that email feel
Speaker 3: guilty they didn't reply to you, and they're probably going
Speaker 3: to get back to you.
Speaker 2: Okay, Tyler, thanks for taking the time with my audience
Speaker 2: and illuminating what's going on in DC and inside the
Speaker 2: Congress and the Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 3: Hey, Bob, my pleasure. I love the showgir to.
Speaker 2: Be with you until next time. This is Bob left
Speaker 2: six