WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on Wednesday questioned Lori Chavez-DeRemer at a hearing on her nomination for Secretary of Labor. Murphy pressed Chavez-DeRemer on whether she would prevent Elon Musk or any private company from accessing sensitive labor investigation data and on her views regarding the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Murphy highlighted Elon Musk’s current conflicts with the Department of Labor and pressed Chavez-DeRemer for her commitment to ensuring he cannot access sensitive data he could use to enrich himself: “Elon Musk is right now the subject of several OSHA investigations. Multiple companies are subject to multiple investigations. His rocket company has an injury rate that is about nine times higher than the industry average. I heard you say you will protect data privacy, but let me ask once again the very specific question: will you commit to denying access to Elon Musk or any of his representatives to information about labor violations at OSHA or any other information about labor violation investigations at the Department of Labor?”

Murphy continued: “This is an individual who owns companies that have existing investigations. He has a direct interest in getting information about the seriousness of those investigations. He has interest in getting information about investigations against his competitors. It seems like a pretty simple commitment to make, to say ‘I am not going to give any private company exclusive access to information about open investigations against them or their competitors.’ Why can't you just make that commitment to us?”

As billionaires Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk argue the only agency responsible for protecting workers’ rights, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is unconstitutional, Murphy asked Chavez-DeRemer if she agrees: “Both SpaceX and Amazon have filed suits against the NLRB, contesting its constitutionality. It is a pretty extreme argument, saying that the NLRB is actually unconstitutional. I know you were asked earlier about the firing of one of the members. Do you believe that the NLRB is constitutional?”

A full transcript of Murphy’s exchange with Chavez-DeRemer can be found below:

MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for your willingness to serve and come before this committee. I think Senator Murray's questions were really important regarding the security of data and sensitive information at the Department of Labor, and so I just want to drill down and maybe make a finer point here. 

“Elon Musk is right now the subject of several OSHA investigations. Multiple companies are subject to multiple investigations. His rocket company has an injury rate that is about nine times higher than the industry average. I heard you say you will protect data privacy, but let me ask once again the very specific question: will you commit to denying access to Elon Musk or any of his representatives to information about labor violations at OSHA or any other information about labor violation investigations at the Department of Labor?”

CHAVEZ-DEREMER: “Thank you Senator. On this same issue, committing to privacy, again, I know that for most listening to this it seems as though when we’re trying to answer these questions, but I have not been in these conversations. I am not confirmed. I only see what is happening possibly on the news and so forth. The president has the executive power to have his coalition of advisors and determine what is best for the American people. He made a promise to the American people that he was going to do these things and check into what is happening. Other than that, I don't have – I have not been read in on any of this. And if confirmed, I commit to taking a deeper look and working with your office and any other office on this issue.”

MURPHY: “This one feels pretty simple. This is an individual who owns companies that have existing investigations. He has a direct interest in getting information about the seriousness of those investigations. He has interest in getting information about investigations against his competitors. It seems like a pretty simple commitment to make, to say ‘I am not going to give any private company exclusive access to information about open investigations against them or their competitors.’ Why can't you just make that commitment to us?”

CHAVEZ-DEREMER: “Well again, the president has the executive power to exercise it as he sees fit. I am not the president of the United States. I work for the president of the United States, if confirmed, and I will serve at the pleasure of the president. On this issue, again, I have not been into the Department of Labor. So I will commit to working with your office, I will commit to coming back– if confirmed, and I am in the Department of Labor– coming back and answering those questions to this committee. Wholeheartedly I will commit to that.”

MURPHY: “But you have the ability to disagree with the president. You certainly serve at his pleasure, but that doesn't mean you have to take actions you believe to be unethical. If the president asks you to give access to information to benefit a friend of his who has pending investigations, you wouldn't say no?”

CHAVEZ-DEREMER: “Well, the president, I think, in building his team – a formidable team – to determine that, I don't think is expecting yes-men and -women. We are going to be advisors to the president, and I would talk to the president. But on this issue, one, I am not an attorney. I would certainly consult with the Department of Labor solicitors. I would certainly consult with the White House and their attorneys. But until I am confirmed and in the Department of Labor, I would not be able to say specific to this, without having the full picture, before that.”

MURPHY: “I don’t think you need to be an attorney to understand that giving access to a company, to sensitive data about labor violations at their company or to competitors’ companies is deeply unethical. 

“Let me ask you another question. Both SpaceX and Amazon have filed suits against the NLRB, contesting its constitutionality. It is a pretty extreme argument, saying that the NLRB is actually unconstitutional. I know you were asked earlier about the firing of one of the members. Do you believe that the NLRB is constitutional?”

CHAVEZ-DEREMER: “I believe the NLRB definitely has its authority and I respect that authority. I know you mentioned, or I mentioned, that I’m not an attorney. That being said, it looks like the courts are dealing with that, but what I respect is the fact that it is [a] separate, independent agency and I think it has a role to play, and I respect that. As the Department of Labor Secretary, if confirmed, I will take that very seriously.”

MURPHY: “But do you believe it is constitutional?”

CASSIDY: “You can answer that question real fast.”

CHAVEZ-DEREMER: “Thank you. I definitely believe the NLRB is an important agency, independent. And I will work with the NLRB, as we have very different jurisdictions but we often overlap. And so I think it is important to recognize it is an important agency, independent and so forth.”

###