Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (Murkowski): Hearings to examine the nominations of Brett Matsumoto, of Maryland, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, James Macy, of Wisconsin, and David M. Prouty, of Maryland, both to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board.

The committee— Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. I apologize for being late. There was a business meeting in ENR that went long, so I apologize. First, I thank the nominees for being here and your families for agreeing to the sacrifice that you're making on behalf of our country. The National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, is tasked with resolving labor disputes and protecting workers' rights under federal law.

Under the Biden administration, the NLRB overturned decades of precedent, creating instability for workers in the nation's economy. We now have the opportunity to put workers first and maintain the board's quorum so that it works as it is supposed to work. If confirmed to the NLRB, Mr. Jim Macy and Mr. David Prowdy will be charged to clear the backlog of cases and restore certainty for workers in the nation's economy. In addition to the NLRB nominees, we will hear from Dr. Brett Matsumoto, nominated to be the commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The current job report process is not working, with significant corrections to the numbers months later resulting in large swings in the stock market and the retirement portfolios for many Americans.

It confirmed Dr. Matsumoto will be tasked with bringing transparency, innovation, and accuracy to our nation's economic data, including jobs numbers. Thank you all for being here. Again, thank to the families for the support they give you. And with that, I recognize Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Um, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where the people on top have never done better while 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to put food on the table or pay for healthcare, uh, workers all over this country are turning to unions as a way to get decent wages, decent working conditions, decent benefits. That's the fact. They're hurting. They understand that they can't do it alone. They need solidarity, and they're working with unions.

And what we are also seeing is that while workers want to join unions, we're seeing in incredibly brazen ways companies breaking the law. If you want to form a union, we're going to fire you. We're going to move to China.

You're gonna be penalized, all because you wanna be part of a union. And if by some reason workers actually form a union, it takes them forever to get a first contract, and then workers then become demoralized and they give up on the process. So forming a union is a constitutional right. Workers wanna do it, and in order for them to be successful, They need a National Labor Relations Board which stands up for them, which is in fact what the NLRB is supposed to do. Unfortunately, uh, that has not been the case, and that effort, uh, anti-worker effort is being led by President Trump, who has ripped up the union contracts of a million federal workers, has illegally fired hundreds of thousands of workers, has rescinded a federal rule that that would have provided overtime pay to more than 4 million workers.

And in the first year in office, he effectively shut down the NLRB, the only federal agency in America that can hold corporations accountable for illegal union busting, by illegally firing Gwen, uh, Wilcox. This morning, we will be considering two of President Trump's NLRB nominees: James Macy, who would be new to the board, and David Proudy, to serve another term at this agency. Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Proudy's renomination, but I am opposed to Mr. Macy's nomination. And let me very briefly tell you why. As I understand it, Mr. Macy has spent most of his career representing the interests of management, not ordinary workers.

Further, as a senior official at the Department of Labor, Mr. Macy has worked on policies that undermine working families. For example, at the Department of Labor, he worked on a proposed rule that would deny over a million home care workers the right to the federal minimum wage and overtime pay. Uh, Mr. Chairman, we need members of the NLRB who will protect the rights of workers, not undermine them. We also today considering the nomination of Brett Matsumoto, to be commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a very, very important position. A couple of months ago, President Trump made the unacceptable decision to fire the previous BLS commissioner, Dr. Erika McEntarfer, because he absurdly claimed that she rigged and manipulated employment statistics.

That was, of course, a lie. Dr. McEntarfer was confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 86 to 8, with an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats voting for her confirmation. She was extremely well qualified, and there was zero evidence that she did anything inappropriate. So, uh, I will not support the nomination of Dr. Matsumoto. Thank you.

We're joined, uh, begin with Mr. Macy. We're joined today by James Macy, nominee for the National Labor Relations Board. He'll be introduced by our colleague, Senator Ron Johnson, who represents Mr. Macy's home state of Wisconsin. I noticed that you both pronounce Johnson the same way, which tells me that there's a Wisconsin accent. You know what I'm saying?

And so I—. What's that? Yeah, there's no accent. That's only if you're from Louisiana. I yield to my colleague, Senator Johnson.

Thank you. And I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Macy, after that. We're not the ones that talk funny here. But, you know, Mr. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, members of the committee, it is my honor to introduce Jim Macy as a nominee to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. Like me, Jim's hometown is Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

I've known and worked with Jim for more than 20 years. He was my company's outside counsel on labor matters, and we served together on multiple boards of Oshkosh community organizations. He is a consummate professional who maintains the highest standard of integrity. Jim brings more than 4 decades of experience in labor and employment law, grounded in both deep professional expertise and a lifelong commitment to public service. A native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, he was raised in Menominee Falls and educated in the state's public schools, graduating in the top 10% of his high school class.

He graduated summa cum laude from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse with a Bachelor of Science degree in political science. He earned his law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School, working multiple jobs to finance his education. Jim was a partner at several prominent Milwaukee-based law firms where he focused primarily on labor and employment matters. He chaired multiple labor and employment practice groups and earned consistent recognition from Best Lawyers in America and Super Lawyers for his professional excellence.. He's admitted to practice in both Wisconsin and Florida.

Beyond his legal career, Jim has always demonstrated a strong commitment to his community. He has served in numerous leadership roles, including chair of the Oshkosh Area Chamber of Commerce, chair of the Leadership Oshkosh Steering Committee, and chair of the Grand Opera House Board, uh, supporting the arts. He's also contributed his time to the local school foundation, a municipal zoning board of review, and Lakeside Packaging Plus, an organization dedicated to expanding opportunities for individuals with diverse abilities. Following his retirement from private practice, Jim continued his public service by joining the Department of Labor in September 2025. Since then, he has served as senior counselor in the secretary's office, acting as administrator for the— of the Wage and Hour Division, and currently as director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

In each role, he has demonstrated exceptional leadership and a commitment to advancing the department's mission. Jim is a devoted father. Jim is a devoted father of 3 sons, a longtime youth sports coach and official. As one would expect, a loyal Wisconsin Badgers and Green Bay Packers fan. Also, like me, Jim is a connoisseur of Oshkosh— of Wisconsin's finest cheese curds.

I think you guys have learned to appreciate those as well. His depth of experience, dedication to fairness in the workplace, and record of service make him a strong and well-qualified nominee for the National Labor Relations Board. I highly recommend that the members of this committee support his nomination. Thank you. Mr. Macy.

Good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I'd also like to thank Senator Johnson for his kind introduction and for being here today. I greatly appreciate his support and his friendship. While I have the support, the full support of my sons Jack and Austin, and my stepson Ben, they're not able to be here today.

Jack is attending U.S. Marine Officer School at Quantico. Austin's back at home working in auto sales, and Ben's back at home working for the city of Oshkosh. I am proud of all of them. I'm truly honored to be here and grateful to President Trump for nominating me to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. I am a lifelong Wisconsinite, and should the Senate see fit to confirm my nomination, I'd be the first NLRB member from Wisconsin since the board was established under the Act.

While one Wisconsinite was appointed to the pres— predecessor NLRB— NLRB. He served 4 months limited to assisting with the establishment of that board. It would be an incredible privilege to serve in coming from the Midwest. I was born in Milwaukee, grew up in the suburb of Menominee Falls, attended the University of La Crosse— Wisconsin-La Crosse— and earned my law degree from the University of Wisconsin Law School. I am a product of of the strong Wisconsin public school system.

My parents taught me the values of hard work, honesty, education, and respect for all people. Those values have guided me throughout my life and career. I practiced labor and employment law for more than 40 years. During that time, I primarily represented employers. Participated in hundreds of collective bargaining negotiations, tried hundreds of administrative cases, appeared before most, if not all, of the state and federal labor agencies, worked with employees and representatives of union and management across many different industries and with many different unions.

I also acted as an independent hearing officer in over 100 separate due process cases. Those experiences taught me the importance of listening carefully, respecting different points of view, and building on common ground, finding practical solutions. They also gave me a deep appreciation for the role of the National Labor Relations Act and what it plays in promoting stable labor-management relations. More recently, I've had the privilege of serving at the Department of Labor first as senior counselor to the Secretary's Office, then as acting administrator for the Wage and Hour Division, and currently as the director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. In each of these roles, my focus remained on following the law and forwarding the president's initiative and helping the American workers.

Senators, I can tell you all, you can all be proud of the many dedicated employees at each of these agencies and the work they're doing every day, again, in support of the American workers. I've always appreciated the vital role of the National Labor Relations Board plays in protecting the rights of all employees to freely associate and bargain collectively as they decide, while promoting stability and labor management relations. I have always appreciated the vital role the National Labor Relations Board plays in supporting commerce. Workers deserve to know that their statutory rights will be protected. Employers and labor organizations of all sizes deserve clarity, competence, and impartiality from government.

I also recognize the importance of timely decision-making. Delays can be difficult for all parties involved in a labor dispute. Well, every case must be considered carefully and decided on its merits. I believe the board should strive to resolve all matters as efficiently as possible and provide prompt, fair adjudication to those who come before the agency. I compliment current members Murphy, Mayer, and Prowdy for the work they've done on the backlog, and I welcome the opportunity to assist them if confirmed.

It'd be a tremendous honor to serve on the National Labor Relations Board. I pledge that if confirmed, I will faithfully uphold my oath of office and discharge my responsibilities with integrity, fairness, and independence. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to your questions, with the exception of maybe cheese curds.

Next, we're joined by Board Member David Proudy, nominee for, I guess, reappointment to the National Labor Relations Board. He'll be introduced by our colleague Senator Chris Van Hollen, who represents Mr. Proudy's state of residence, Maryland. Senator. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sanders, members of the committee. I'm honored to join you to once again introduce David Proudy, who hails from my home state of Maryland and has been nominated by the president to serve a second term on the National Labor Relations Board.

As you know, we have a long history of pairing nominees to ensure that the independent agencies of government remain balanced, and I appreciate the chairman for continuing that tradition by considering the nominations of both Mr. Macy and Mr. Proudy today. 5 Years ago, when he first came before the Senate, Mr. Proudy brought with him a distinguished career as a leading labor a labor attorney. His professional life has been devoted to representing working people and defending their rights guaranteed under our country's labor laws. And so over the last 5 years, Mr. Proudy has served as a member of the NLRB during a consequential period for American labor relations. The board, as you know, has confronted significant questions involving organizing rights, collective bargaining, workplace protections, and the interpretation of the National Labor— Labor Relations Act in a rapidly changing economy.

Throughout his tenure on the NLRB, Mr. Prowdy has exemplified the Board's mission by enforcing the country's labor laws in order to promote stability in labor-management relations and encourage collective bargaining. Mr. Prowdy's service reflects an understanding that the Board benefits from a diversity of professional experiences and viewpoints. He has served alongside workers advancing collective bargaining, and he has spent the last 5 years working alongside colleagues whose backgrounds include management-side labor law and government service. And together they have protected and promoted the rights of workers in accordance with the law. The NLRB's work often involves issues that generate strong views from workers, employers, unions, and policymakers alike.

Members of this committee know that, but one of the hallmarks of public service is the willingness to approach these questions thoughtfully, engage seriously with competing arguments, and faithfully apply the law. Mr. Proudy has proven his ability to do just that over the last 5 years as a board member, whether serving as advocate, counselor, or NLRB board member. He has dedicated his professional life to America's workers, and I appreciate his willingness to continue to serve colleagues. It's for those reasons that— and many more, I should say— that I'm honored to present to you one of the President's nominees to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, Maryland's own David Proudy. Mr. Proudy.

Ranking members and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I'm honored by President Trump's nomination and by your consideration of me for a second term, uh, as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. I wanna thank, uh, Senator Van Hollen for his kind introduction. Uh, I'm joined here today by my brother Douglas Proudy, who's a former Montgomery County, Maryland high school teacher, and also, I should note, president of its teachers union. My wife, Olive Crone, a midwife and a native of the Republic of Ireland, is home recovering from a broken ankle.

She is watching remotely, as are my sisters Carolyn and Eleanor and my children Connor and Molly. Also, no doubt watching are the members of my outstanding staff at the NLRB, as well as many other colleagues from our great agency. Since 2021, I have built a record of decisions and statements as a board member, and that's probably the most relevant information for you to consider as you pass on my qualifications for a second term. But I'll make a few brief points nonetheless. First, I'm happy to report that since the Senate confirmed the nominations of my two new colleagues and they took office in January of this year, not only was a quorum at the NLRB restored so that the board could return to issuing decisions, but we have also been prolific in doing so.

Since early January, we've reduced the backlog at the NLRB of 591 cases down to 396. Of course, in the meantime, 174 new cases came through the door. But in total, we've decided 369 cases in the brief 5 months since the quorum was restored. I believe the board operates best with its full complement of 5 members. So, while it's of course in my self-interest to say so, I do hope the Senate will act promptly and favorably on the nominations of my friend Mr. Macy and myself so that we can keep that momentum going.

Second, it's been an honor to serve as a member of the, of the Board for the past 5 years. In that time, I've come to have a greater appreciation for the NLRB, its history, its mission, and most of all, for the dedicated government employees who work for it and who are committed to enforcing the rights of workers protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Third, as my resume makes clear, I spent the 30— first 35 years of my legal career as a union-side lawyer. I proudly represented a wide spectrum of workers from clothing, textile, and laundry employees to hotel housekeepers, to restaurant staff, to Major League Baseball players, to building doormen and janitors. And I negotiated dozens of collective bargaining agreements with those workers' employers.

However, I've spent the past 5 years as a neutral, conscientiously applying the law to the facts of each case. Of course, every person on the board brings their different life experiences to this task. And my understanding of the Act is no doubt shaped by the years I spent litigating both unfair labor practice cases and union election cases before the NLRB. But I believe that the public and the parties who appear by the Board are all best served by having a variety of viewpoints within the labor-management field represented on the Board. The current Board, for instance, consists of myself, a former union lawyer, along with Scott Mayer, a lifetime management lawyer.

And Jim Murphy, a career NLRB lawyer. Each of us, and Mr. Macy, should we both be confirmed by the Senate, will approach our jobs from a different point of view, and I think that's a good thing. Finally, I'm proud of my record as a board member. No doubt you'll have questions about some of the cases we decided during the Biden board era, and I welcome them. But whether you agree or disagree with my positions, I can assure you that each decision was carefully studied by each board member involved and was released only after thorough consideration of all sides of the issues presented.

And as you'll see, I haven't always agreed with my board colleagues, be they Republican or Democrat. I've always voted the courage of my convictions, and the one promise I can make if I'm confirmed again is that I will continue, as we say in baseball, to call 'em as I see 'em. I also want to say that NLRB members, Republicans and Democrats, very often agree Historically, well over 80% of the cases decided by the NLRB are decided unanimously, that is, by a 3-0 vote of the panel assigned to the case. In fact, of the over 230 contested cases that we've decided since January, only 9 times has anyone, admittedly usually me, dissented. As I said in my opening statement 5 years ago, I believe in the guiding principles behind the National Labor Relations Act.

And which its preamble so eloquently declares, is intended to, quote, encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. I believe that everyone, employees, employers, unions, and the public at large, is best served when workers and their employers can sit across the table from one another as equals under the law and negotiate in an open, respectful, and creative manner over the terms and conditions of their employment. Thank you, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you, sir. Next, we're joined by Dr. Brett Matsumoto, nominated to be the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The doctor is a research economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics Division of Price and Index Numbers Research. He has specialized in research to support the Consumer Price Index, particularly medical research. He received his undergraduate and master's degree from the University of Delaware and PhD in economics from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Thank you, sir, for being with us.

Good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you as a nominee to be Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is an honor to have been nominated by President Trump for this important position. Before beginning, I would like to thank all of the people who are responsible for getting me to where I am today. My parents and my older brothers, as well as other relatives, teachers, and mentors.

I would also like to thank everyone who made positive statements regarding my nomination. When President Trump announced the intention to nominate me for this position, there was a lot of media interest. Although reading news stories about myself is something I'm still getting used to, I was humbled by the positive reactions of economists across the political spectrum. I grew up in Delaware and attended college at the University of Delaware. After graduating with degrees in philosophy, history, economics, and a master's in economics, I went to the University of North Carolina for a PhD in economics, where I specialized in applied microeconomics.

After completing my PhD, I got a job at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I have worked for the Bureau of Labor Statistics since 2015, on economic measurement topics. I have published on topics relating to inflation and consumption measurement. I have also worked on projects to support the production offices, mainly the Consumer Price Index program. This includes work on alternative data projects, most notably a project to replace traditionally collected data with insurance claims data for the medical price indexes.

In September 2024, I was promoted to a supervisory position where I oversee a small team of economists. In the first Trump administration, I did a detail at the Council of Economic Advisers where I worked on labor and health topics. In early 2025, I was asked to do another detail by the incoming chairman of the CEA, and I've been in that role since. While working at the CEA, I've gained a great appreciation for the official economic statistics from the perspective of a data user. Much of the analysis done at the CEA would be impossible without the official data, and having timely and accurate data is extremely important in the process of developing good economic policies.

I believe strongly in the mission of the BLS to produce objective quality measures and analyses of labor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity in the United States economy to support public and private decision-making. To achieve this mission, it is important for the public to be confident that decisions at the BLS are being driven by science rather than politics. If confirmed, I will commit to maintain the integrity and independence of the BLS. Also, any changes to data or methods will be approved by career staff at the agency and communicated to the public ahead of time along with research supporting the change. If confirmed, I would be leading the BLS at a pivotal moment.

Our statistical system is built upon surveys of businesses and households. The continued decline in response rates threatens the future reliability of a survey-based statistical system and may already be having impacts on sample sizes, the variability of data, and revisions. My priority as Commissioner would be pursuing efforts to mitigate the decline in response rates while pursuing a research agenda into alternative data sources that could be used to supplement or replace traditional survey data. I will also focus on improving transparency and communication with data users. Finally, I have a great interest in working to improve our measurement of the impact of new technologies such as artificial intelligence.

It is a privilege to be here today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. I'll begin with you, sir. You, you mentioned alternative data sources. For context, BLS overestimated job growth by 861,000 million jobs.

That can't be right, right? Is that right? From April 24th to March 2025, the largest revision since you began tracking this data. And you mentioned using alternative survey sources. Do you have an idea of what those alternative sources would be?

Yeah, so when looking at payroll data specifically, there are a number of potential alternative data sources. Now, each of these has a number of, say, pros and cons, as well as potential costs. But just to go through the list, one possibility would be the data from payroll companies. Another possibility would be potentially to use tax withholding data. And a final possibility is to use the data that go into the— that are reported to the state UI systems.

And these are the data that are actually already used as part of the benchmarking process. But like I said, there would be challenges for each of those, but those are the avenues. I mean, I could go into more detail if you want, but those would be the possible potential alternative data sources. Okay. Mr. Prowdy, in recent years, the board has seen massive policy swings with each administration.

We spoke about that in our personal conversation, and it makes it— it eliminates certainty. It makes it more difficult for both the unions and management to kind of plot a course. So can you speak to how you approach when to change precedent and what factors you consider when doing so. Thank you for that question, Senator. As we discussed in our meeting yesterday, we don't scan the horizon looking for cases to overturn.

Generally, the way it works is that the general counsel will bring us cases and recommend that we overturn precedent. Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. But as quasi-judges, that's our job, is to judge the cases before us. If the general counsel asks, however, uh, the things we consider are what was the precedent, how long and how well-reasoned was the precedent, and sometimes some of them are not well-reasoned, how long it's been in effect, um, and also how the world may have changed since that precedent was first established. Um, we've got a 90-year-old act, um, that sometimes keeps pace with the economy of today and sometimes doesn't.

And then we also consider if we're going to change precedent, Should we do it prospectively or should we do it retroactively? And often we do it prospectively for the very reason, as you mentioned, of fairness, which is to give the parties going forward the expectation of how their behavior will be judged going forward, but not to play gotcha with them going back.

Macy, when should the board preempt specific cases with rulemaking that broadly applies?

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. In terms of rulemaking, the statute, as you know, Congress put in the statute that authority for, for the board to consider. I think that is a tool that should be considered by the board. I think the rulemaking tool does give the opportunity for notice and review. I have had some experience in my time at wage and hour and at workers' compensation to work on that, and I respect that process.

But as Member Prowdy also indicated, a number of the matters come to the board— to the board for consideration. So some of those things happen through adjudication. I'm not sure you answered the question, though. Yes, it comes through adjudication, perhaps. And you have the right to exercise it, when would you exercise that right, uh, with rulemaking as opposed to merely wait for, or only wait for, a case to come before you?

Thank you for the clarification on that. As it comes through adjudication, of course, we'd have to hear the cases that, that come to us and decide those. Through rulemaking, I think there are areas we should look at that are broader having impact that could use some resolution. I think it would be helpful in the areas where we've seen swings back and forth between the different decisions that don't add to stability, that aren't helpful to the practitioners, to the employees, to the unions. And I think those may be ripe for rulemaking.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the panelists for being here. Good morning. Mr. Macy, um, you have served, as I understand, in several roles at the current Labor Department, uh, including the acting administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. Uh, the Wage and Hour Division proposed a rule to strip home care workers of their right to minimum wage and overtime.

Do you really believe that home care workers should be paid less than $7.25 an hour and not get paid time and a half for overtime? Thank you, Senator, for your question. Within the rulemaking authority in matters that are pending in that regard, I'm not at liberty to really discuss those aspects of it in the background of those type of issues. Okay. Mr. Macy, do you believe it was illegal for President Trump to fire Gwynne Wilcox as a member of the NLRB, which effectively shut down the NLRB last year?

Well, Senator, that's a matter pending in litigation, and my role, or potential role, assuming I'm confirmed, uh, is not to comment on matters that are in pending litigation. No opinion on the It wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on that. Okay. Mr. Macy, as you know, one of the most common union-busting tactics is to interrogate workers and subject them to mandatory captive audience meetings. Do you have a comment on that?

Do you agree that those meetings should be illegal? Well, again, as I understand it, there are matters that are pending before the board that that may touch upon that subject. And again, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on that. You know, you come in before this—. I do.

You're coming before the committee and you apparently have no opinions as to what you're going to do. It makes it hard for us to assess the role you're going to play. And that reconfirms my feeling that I'm going to vote against you, Mr. Prowdy and Mr. Macy. SpaceX, owned by Elon Musk, and Amazon, owned by Jeff Bezos, Bezos, two of the wealthiest guys in the world, have filed lawsuits arguing that the NLRB board is unconstitutional. Mr. Prowdy, is the NLRB board unconstitutional?

Thank you, Senator Sanders. Uh, under the Jones and Laughlin decision of the Supreme Court going back to just after the act was enacted, it would found the act to be constitutional. So the answer to your question is yes. Mr. Macy, is the NLRB board unconstitutional? I concur with, uh, Member Proudy that according to the United States Supreme Court, as it stands today, and that that's what's been found by the court, that it is.

Um, let me ask both Mr. Proudy, Mr. Macy, uh, yes or no, do you support the PRO Act that would make it easier for workers to form unions and hold corporations accountable for illegal union busting? Senator, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on proposed legislation. My job is to enforce the act as written. If the act changes, I'll enforce the act as it changes. Let me guess, Mr. Macy, you're not going to comment on that either, huh?

I would not be able to, Senator. Thank you. Mr. Matsumoto, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been highly politicized by President Trump. Among other things, he claimed that your predecessor, Erica McEntire, quote, quote, faked the jobs numbers before the election to try to boost Kamala's chance of victory, end quote. Do you agree with that statement?

The president's statements speak for themselves, and I'm not going to comment on them. He got rid of your predecessor because he thought she was corrupt, basically. No comment on that? Uh, it's not appropriate for me to comment on presidential personnel decisions. Well, let me ask you this.

If the President of the United States demands that you change the numbers in the jobs report to make him look better, will you obey him or will you follow the law? I do not believe that the president would ask me to do that. Really? However, I will follow the law, and I can commit that the numbers that are compiled by the career staff at the BLS, if confirmed, those are the numbers that will be released to the public as scheduled. Thank you.

Senator Murkowski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, Mr. Macy, can you commit to enforcing the National Labor Relations Act fairly regardless of employer or union affiliation? Yes, Senator. Mr. Prowdy, same question to you. Can you commit to enforcing the National Labor Relations Act fairly regardless of employer or union affiliation? Yes.

Thank you both. Um, as you may know, Alaska has a number of tribes and Alaska Native corporations. That operate both public and private sector enterprises. Hopefully very quickly, how would you approach questions of labor law as they relate to sovereign entities or perhaps more complex jurisdictional questions? And I'll pose that to either one of you or both.

Mr. Prowdy? Well, thank you, Senator. I think the answer to that is going to depend on the cases that come before us. I can't make a pronouncement going forward based on a hypothetical. But you're recognizing that when you're dealing with a sovereign entity, it is different than what you may have in your regular stack in front of you.

It is, and I've spent some time in Alaska, so I'm aware of that. But again, we can only consider the cases that come before us, and I can't really comment on issues that might come before us. Understood. I just want an acknowledgment that we are dealing with different entities here. Thank you for that.

Let me ask you, Mr.— or Dr. Matsumoto, and again, this is bringing it back to my home state. BLS tracks consumer prices in major urban areas, but my sense is that it is less effective in capturing the astronomical costs that we see in our more remote parts of Alaska, our off-road communities, whether it's the cost of goods, fuels, air freight, transportation. And further to that point, it's difficult to capture the value that comes with subsistence economies to community resilience. It just, it doesn't fit neat boxes. And this is why when we look at some of the challenges that we face in Alaska, we're arguing for more flexibility, we're arguing for more support, because the actual cost to the individual has not been accurately reflected.

We are measured against, against other population centers that may be connected by road. Right now, I've got communities in Alaska that will be seeing fuel supplies delivered for the first time since September. And it's not because of anybody's fault. That's just the natural cycle. There's two fuel barges that come twice a year in June, right about now, and then in September.

So think about what that does to the cost of everything else. So the question that I have for you is how or whether the BLS can expand or reform its methodologies to better reflect some of the challenges that we see in more remote and highly rural areas. Again, reflecting high costs for transportation, but also the complicating overlay of subsistence activities into metrics that is utilized by BLS. Uh, yeah, uh, thank you for the question. Um, I, I agree, it's, it's very important.

Um, the, the CPI, uh, it's restricted to the, to the urban population. Um, now, urban is defined in such a way that that ends up covering about 90-some percent of the, of the population. However, that still leaves a, a quite substantial portion of the population, uh, not covered by the index. It's something that I've, I've long had an interest in, uh, and certainly it's something that I would, uh, look forward to, uh, if confirmed, uh, looking into seeing if that if there are any ways to expand the coverage. Well, and I guess I would put the same challenge to you as I did with Mr. Macy and Mr. Proudy in terms of just recognizing that when you're dealing with tribal entity that is a sovereign entity, look at that differently.

But again, when you are dealing with populations that are extremely remote, you might need to do a different calculus here. I'd also like to know from you, And excuse me, I guess this comes back to Mr. Macy and Mr. Prowdy here. We acknowledge that there is a backlog that continues across the NLRB, but we seem to see it greater in the more remote and rural areas of the country. How would you propose to address that? We need to focus on the backlog, but we've got a real problem when it comes to our rural areas.

Mr. Prowdy. Well, I acknowledge the problem, Senator. The regional areas of the NLRB are overseen by the general counsel. There has been a shortage of staffing, which we're— which she is trying to address now by hiring more people. She also has an initiative, which I can't really comment on, but to try to redistribute the cases to make the processing of cases more efficient, particularly, I think, in rural.

Areas. So that's the extent of my knowledge of that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Baldwin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Prowdy and Mr. Macy, I want to talk a little bit about the NLRB budget to begin with. It's the sole agency that can conduct and certify union elections, and unless an employer voluntarily recognized as a union, this is the only way to form one. The right of workers to organize depends on the NLRB's ability to function, and there are workers in Wisconsin, including nurses at St. Mary's Hospital in Madison, who are scheduled to vote on forming a union this week, who rely on a fully functioning board. But the staffing levels have drastically reduced over the last 15 years, and processing times for cases pertaining to unfair labor practices has lengthened quite dramatically.

These cases are mostly brought forth by workers whose rights may have been violated, and they deserve attention. So the— this question is for each of you. Do you think that the NLRB needs increased funding for staff to protect workers enforce labor laws and fully do its job? Let's start with Mr. Prowdy. Thank you for the question, Senator.

The budget which is before Congress now for next year will allow us to continue our functions. If Congress were to choose to increase that budget, then we would be able to even better improve those functions. I want to point out that part of the problem with— part of the issue with the backlog is that we've seen it tremendous uptick in, um, in the number of cases that have been filed, both mostly because of increased union organizing. And so, um, the regions, as you said, have been, um, and as I said to Senator Murkowski, the staffs have been cut, not through cut cuts, but through attrition and layoffs. And hiring is going on now, and we're hoping—.

And I, I will get to that in a moment. Mr. Macy. Your comments. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your concern.

I haven't been at the agency you have confirmed. That's certainly something I want to analyze and to look at. Okay. And— but I'm sorry. Thank you.

I just want to get through a number of questions. Will you commit here today that you will request sufficient funding and any additional authorities to hire and retain sufficient staff for the caseload. You know, I'm also an appropriator, not just a member of the Health Committee, and I look at these issues carefully. So will you commit here today that you'll request sufficient funding and any additional authority to hire and retain sufficient staff? Mr. Proudy?

Senator, I'm one of potentially 5 board members, and so I can't speak for the whole board. We would come to that decision along with the general counsel and come to you to request more money. I think both the Chairman and the General Counsel last week in a hearing indicated that they would appreciate more money for the NLRB. And Mr. Macy? Thank you, Senator.

As you, as you proposed the question, I would support that where appropriate, and we would work within what Congress believes was appropriate. And more specifically, will you commit to requesting sufficient funds to keep NLRB regional offices open? Open and accessible to the public. Mr. Prowdy. I will commit to that again within the context of my role as one of five.

Mr. Raisin. And I would, I would definitely commit to working with Congress and analyzing what's the most efficient way to provide those offices. And quite frankly, we're doing that across the other agencies as well. I think that's an important goal. Now I want to I want to bring up the issues of NLRB independence.

Mr. Prouty, Mr. Macy, President Trump has shown repeatedly that he is willing to wield his influence on employees of agencies that have historically been independent, including firing members of the National Labor Relations Board. It's essentially— it's essential to me to know if you will exercise independent judgment in this role. I have additional yes or no questions for both of you. Um, are you prepared to issue a ruling the president disagrees with, Mr. Prowdy? Yes.

Mr. Macy? Yes. During your decision-making process related to a case or rulemaking, would you take into account how you anticipate the president may want you to rule on a particular issue, Mr. Prowdy? No. Mr. Macy.

No, I would make an independent decision based upon the facts presented. And, uh, if a case comes before you that has, uh, clear evidence that a company violated a labor law, but the White House weighs in to tell you to side with the employer, will you follow the law or follow the White House directive? Mr. Proudy. I would follow the law. Mr. Macy.

I would follow the law. And lastly, will you— would you report that behavior to Congress? Mr. Proudy? Yes. Mr. Macy?

I would follow all the appropriate reporting requirements that exist. Thank you.

Senator Usted. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. Dr. Massimino, I want to ask a question or two about the BLS data. It's published for policymakers, economists, businesses.

It's something that the American public and business labor leadership rely upon to make judgments about how the economy is doing, where the labor market is, and— We've seen in, uh, recent years the statistical data collection process have massive errors, uh, including, uh, from April '23 to March 2024, they overestimated job creation by 818,000 jobs in one year. One could almost guess more accurately than that, uh, and so I'm, I'm just curious about any thoughts you have on how BLS can improve the data collection and provide a more accurate picture of what's going on in the labor market and the economy.

Yeah, so thank you for the question. This is a very important topic. There are a number of sources of error from— if you look from the first release of data to the final benchmark revision process. Some of that is late respondents. Some of that is the initial month seasonal factor can get revised in later months.

Once you get to the third month, then that initial revision process holds until the benchmark revision. And in the benchmark revision, there are a number of other sources of potential error. How do we improve upon that? Yeah, so some of this— some of the issue leading to large persistently negative revisions could be an issue with the statistical models. So if you're, if you're trying to estimate something and you're consistently off in the same direction, that could be an issue with some of the statistical models that are used in estimation.

And so there could potentially be methodological fixes there. More challenging would be if this is due to the decline in the initial response rate and just the overall response rates, and further study would need to be done into just how much the decline in response rates is contributing. And that, that would ultimately be more challenging if the, if the sample is becoming less representative. Then that is where I think we have to look to alternative data sources. I would encourage you to continue to try to improve upon this model because the way it's working right now is questionable.

So, um, Mr. Macy, Mr. Proudy, um, I ask this of the NRB nominees that have come before this committee with context of the backlog of cases. And, um, I know it reached the high in 2024 of 24,000 cases. I believe we're at 17,000 backlog, 10,000 over 6 months at this point in time. Um, I'll, I'll ask each of you, um, what you intend to do to address that backlog and And we'll start with you, Mr. Proudy. Well, thank you for the question, Senator.

The backlog you're referring to is on the general counsel side. The board is divided into the board side and the general counsel side. So that question would really be more appropriately put to the general counsel because she's in charge of the regions where those charges are filed. If I may, we have our own backlog. Yes, you have your own backlog.

Yeah, right. And since the the, we've gotten the quorum back. We've worked very expeditiously to try to reduce that backlog. We've gotten it down by over 300 cases in 5 months. Mr. Macy.

Thank you, Senator.

The back— the backlog is a concern. I compliment the current board for the work that they've done on that and reducing that. If confirmed, Absolutely have my commitment to put in all time necessary because the parties do deserve fair, quick results. What will assist is by having more members to the board, we can divide cases broader. As I understand it, where 3 members can participate in a decision, when you divide that amongst the 4, we can expedite our— the processing and help with that.

So I would welcome that opportunity. And so what you're telling us is we need to move on with our business and get you confirmed, is that—. I would welcome that and appreciate it. I would be honored. Your words, Senator.

I appreciate both of you and your willingness to serve, and I just would— just as a general comment about this or any other thing that government does, when you hold people up, you're wasting their time and their money. Government needs to be more efficient and deliver services in a timeframe that people can expect, and I hope you will make that a priority.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hessen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and Ranking Member Sanders having this hearing, and to the nominees, good morning and congratulations to you and your family for your nominations, and thank you for your willingness to serve. Let me just start with a question I ask all nominees.

If directed by the president to take an action that would break the law, would you follow the law or follow the president's directive? And Mr. Prouty, we'll start with you. I would follow the law. Thank you. Mr. Macy.

I would follow the law. Thank you. Dr. Mah. I don't believe the president would ask me to do anything like that, but I would follow the law. Thank you.

And to the first part of your answer there, I appreciate all three of you committing to following the law. The president is giving us now almost daily examples of his willingness to break the law and his willingness to direct other people to do the same thing. So I hope you will keep that in mind. To Mr. Proudy and Mr. Macy, Congress established the National Labor Relations Board as an independent federal agency to be free from political influence or executive control. Now, I know Senator Baldwin asked you a similar question, but I want to just make sure I hear it directly from you.

If the National Labor Relations Board held that a practice was illegal, under the National Labor Relations Act, and the president said that he disagrees. Would you instruct agency staff to continue to follow the board's ruling? Mr. Proudy? Yes. And Mr. Macy?

Yes. Thank you. Uh, Dr. Matsumoto, Congress needs to work on a bipartisan basis to help ensure that the benefits of AI go to workers, not just the wealthiest Americans and major corporations. Senator Banks and I have a bipartisan bill called the AI Workforce Force Prepare Act, which would improve the federal government's capacity to assess how AI is impacting the economy, determine how AI is displacing workers, and update retraining programs so that workers are not left behind. Dr., if confirmed, will you commit to reviewing this legislation and working with us to ensure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has the tools that it needs to help us understand the impact of AI on the workforce?

Yeah, if confirmed, I look forward to working with you and others on the topic of measuring AI. Thank you very much. And really measuring its impact on the workforce and then what we need to do to respond to that impact, I think, is going to be a major challenge for all of us and should be a goal we can all share. Dr. Matsumoto, another question. Maintaining the independence and data integrity of the Bureau is obviously actually really important.

Data from the Bureau play a critical role in assessing the health of our economy and setting sound economic policy, including the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve. While the Bureau is widely respected statistical agency, President Trump has politicized the agency by firing Bureau Commissioner McIntarfer in August after a weak jobs report and making completely baseless claims that the numbers were rigged This is the quote. He said the numbers were rigged, close quote, to make the president, quote, look bad, close quote. If confirmed, how will you protect the neutrality and independence of the BLS?

Thank you for the question, and I do agree that fulfilling the mission of the BLS to accurately measure this data does require independence from political interference. And I, if confirmed, you know, I fully commit to maintaining the integrity and independence of the BLS. Do you have ideas about how you can go about doing that? I mean, what— are there structures? Are there chains of command?

Is there the presence of an ombudsman? I'm just trying to think of what practical things you think you can do to protect that neutrality. Yeah, certainly transparency and openness with data users I think helps keep the process sort of free from political interference. If the data users can see sort of how the data are constructed and that there is a reason for the methodological and data decisions that aren't political. Just, I will note, as the— I would be the sole political appointee at the BLS if confirmed.

It is important that decisions not be made by me alone on these matters, that it come from the career staff with the expertise. I appreciate that, and I think one of the other things to do is just to try to make sure that the career staff understands that you will stand up for them when there is political pressure. One of the things we have seen is that whistleblowers have been retaliated against, and we have also seen layoffs and firings of career employees who might provide information that the administration doesn't like. And so I think it's going to be really critically important to reinforce to them that you'll have their backs. I appreciate your willingness to take this on, and thank you.

Yield back. Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the nominees for being here. Congratulations on your nominations.

Mr. Macy, Mr. Prouty, if I could just start with you. As you're probably aware, there are major corporations, mega corporations in the United States who are currently trying to block the efforts of their American employees, of whom they have too few, I might add, from engaging in collective bargaining. And there's no worse example of this than Amazon. Let me show you a picture here. These are Amazon workers on Staten Island who were voting to unionize back in 2022.

This was a huge landmark win for labor and for the employees. It took them years to get to this vote. Amazon, of course, fiercely resisted it, did everything they could to try and stop it, pulled out all of the stops, and yet the employees, as is their right, of course, under the law, voted to unionize. Now, after they did so, Amazon proceeded to engage in a delay of 4 years before they entered into negotiations for a first contract with the management. 4 Years.

Now, as you know, federal law requires bargaining, good faith bargaining, to get to that first contract. But Amazon delayed and delayed and delayed. Now, a few months ago, the Teamsters president Sean O'Brien sat right where you two are sitting and explained that this is common practice across the industry in these multinational mega corporations, Amazon being one of the worst offenders. They deliberately delay and hold up the process of getting to a first contract I was stunned to learn that the average time to a first contract is 465 days. Now, I emphasize, this is after the employees have exercised their federal right to collectively bargain.

465 Days. In half of cases, just about, it is over 2 years before there is any kind of an agreement at all. So let me just ask you, first of all, are you familiar with this issue? Are you concerned about it? Mr. Prouty, go ahead.

Thank you for the question, Senator. Yes, I'm obviously aware of it and I'm concerned about it. Um, as I've said publicly, the remedies available under the act are somewhat limited. I'd invite the Congress to strengthen the act, but, um, we process cases as expeditiously as we can. We have a huge backlog, as you know.

Absolutely. Mr. Macy, I want to come back to your point about what Congress should do, but Mr. Macy, go ahead. Are you familiar with this problem you're concerned about? I am aware of it, and I am concerned about it. Good, good.

I'm glad to hear that. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Proudy, that there's, there's steps for Congress to take here, which is why I'm pleased that yesterday the House of Representatives passed legislation that I wrote and introduced on this side of the Capitol along with my friend Senator Booker. Senator Marshall is a co-sponsor, a number of other my colleagues on the other side of the dais. I called the Faster Labor Contracts Act, and it just tries to actualize the requirements that are already in federal law, namely that employers once their employees have voted, as is their right, to unionize and collectively bargain. We put a shot clock on that bargaining process so we can get to a first contract.

As I said, that legislation passed the House. It would be enforced if it were to pass the Senate, be signed by the president, enforced by the NLRB. Do you think that providing more of a framework, creating a framework for a first contract, putting a, a timeline, putting a shot clock on those negotiations. This bill also provides for arbitration, that parties can choose their arbiters and so forth. But if they can't reach a contract within a certain amount of time, then we get arbitrators to help them.

Does that sound like the kind of thing that would help again give, give voice, give, give, make actual and real this right that employees already have under federal law? Go ahead, Mr. Proudy. Senator, I've got to put on my hat of board member. I really— it's not really appropriate for me to comment on legislation either way on what would improve the act. My job is to enforce the act as it stands.

But you would enforce it if it were passed? I would. Good. Mr. Macy. Thank you, Senator.

The same. I'm in a position that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on pending legislation. But to answer the next question I anticipate is if it were passed, we would abide by the law. Good. Good.

Well, I hope that you'll soon have the opportunity to enforce it. I'll do my best on, on my side of things here, but I think it's vitally important that we make real the guarantees that are already in federal law. Let me just ask you one other question here in my time remaining that's also related to Amazon. Let me show you another Amazon-related picture. This I think will be familiar to everybody in the room.

We've got an Amazon truck. We've got an employee here who is wearing an Amazon-branded t-shirt and other logos, hat. Carrying an Amazon package. Now, you might think that this person wearing all this Amazon gear, carrying the Amazon package, is an Amazon employee. But oh, lo and behold, she's, she's not, according to the company.

The company runs a third-party organization, a delivery service provider that they also control and subcontract with for the purpose of avoiding having to pay this good person full wages, healthcare benefits, giving her the benefits of other, uh, rights that have been won in collective bargaining. My question to you is— I'll let you take a first stab at it, and I'll follow up with some questions for the record— don't you think it's time that we put an end to this kind of blatant attempt to avoid federal labor law? Amazon has for years operated this program with the sole intent of avoiding having to pay these people who they say are not really their employees, though they micromanage their schedule to the second every day. Don't you think it's time that we put a stop to their attempts, Amazon's and others', to evade federal law and the requirements of collective bargaining by treating these people as if they're not really their own employees? Mr. Prowdy.

Senator, as you may know, that very issue is on my desk right now, and so I can't really comment on it. And just tell us why it's on your desk, because the NLRB has taken action on this. There is a proposed settlement of an outstanding case which is before us for review. Well, well, Mr. Chairman, I know my time's expired, so we'll leave it at that. I'll have some follow-up questions for you.

Can I just finish by saying I think that this is outrageous, what is over my shoulder here? The idea that this employee, who is every moment of her life practically is directed by Amazon, yet they don't have to pay her, they don't have to honor the commitments under collective bargaining that might apply to her, I think is ridiculous. And if the NLRB doesn't have the authority to do something about it now, We should give you that authority. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kim.

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the three of you for coming on out here. I guess I wanted to start with Mr. Macy and Mr. Proudy. You know, we talked a lot. You had already talked about the independence issues and other things of that nature.

I just wanted to drill down a little more. Last year, President Trump issued an executive order that directed the NLRB to take some specific actions when it came to the issue of college sports. And I wanted to ask the two of you, was that executive order, was that direction by the president to the NLRB appropriate? Mr. Macy, I'll start with you. Well, again, is it something that may be pending before the NLRB?

I'm really not in a position to comment on that. I do think that that's something that we'll have to review, assuming I am confirmed. So you're not able to say whether or not you thought that, that— because I guess I was thinking about, because you were going back and forth with some of my colleagues about these hypotheticals about whether or not you would take action that is based off of what you think is the right thing to do or, or things that are being directed. Uh, Mr. Prouty, I'd be interested in hearing your response. Senator, my understanding of the act is that we respond when a case is brought before us, either a union election or an unfair labor practice case.

I'm not aware of any— process by which we implement an executive order of the president. So when the president says that he directed NLRB, what was the response from NLRB over the last year? We haven't encountered the issue of college athletes in the last year. Mr. Macy, maybe I'll return to you because I'm just trying to get a sense of this from— just to have you on the record, is the NLRB an independent agency? Uh, as determined by Congress when the act was passed, it was passed as an independent agency.

And until that is determined differently, I believe it is. And I just want to point out, even on the website of the NLRB, it says the NLRB is an independent federal agency created in 1935. So it's not just from the congressional standpoint. And I think that that's important for us to be thinking through here. And I would just say I wish you had a stronger answer there, Mr. Macy.

I was listening to you and I thought you did well when it came to some of these hypotheticals. But here was just a clear-cut case where the president used the word directs the NLRB. That's not right. And I wish you would be able to just say that is not something that the NLRB is required to be able to follow up on. Mr. Prowdy, I wanted to just ask, you talked about the importance of having full board membership.

Can you just tell us a little bit more what you're not able to do what the NLRB is able to do right now without the full board being in place. Oh, thank you for the question, Senator. Um, under the statute, there are supposed to be 5 members of the NLRB. Uh, as the statute has been implemented, we assign cases to panels of 3. Um, so if we had 4 or 5 board members, we could, uh, essentially tackle more cases.

Each board member retains the right to get onto and express their opinion on any case, but a lot of our cases are routine. A lot of our cases are unanimous, and so more board members would mean more efficiency. Thank you. Dr. Matsumoto, I would like to turn to you. You know, you said in your statement here, if confirmed, I will commit to maintain the integrity and independence of the BLS.

That's great. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I want to just ask you, do you agree that there should be independent oversight over the Bureau of Labor Statistics data?

Um, what do you mean by independent oversight? Uh, well, I guess I just want to— what I'm just trying to say is, do you agree that there shouldn't be any politicization of the data, any ability for those in elected office or others to be able to determine what information is made available or what information is taken into account in your assessment? Independence. Yeah, yeah, I agree that the BLS in matters of constructing and disseminating this data should have independence. And when it comes to your own performance here, if confirmed, I wanted to ask if you would commit to divesting from individual stocks if confirmed to this job.

My ethics agreement requires me to divest from one, one company. I have small positions in a couple of other companies, but the ethics agreement did not require me to divest of them. Okay, well, look, I'll just say, you know, look, you know, members of Congress are not at this point required to divest. I have. I think it's important for us to show the American people that we are making these decisions based off of what's best for them, not what's best for us.

And when your position is one that actually has a lot of data coming into you from from across many different industries and sectors, many different companies. And you often have that information before it's made public. In fact, the USA Jobs report often has an impact on the stock market, often has impact on what comes next. So I would just very much implore you to take a position here where you are not invested in individual stocks that you can say for certainty that that is not something that drives or motivates you. And I'm not just pointing it out for you.

I just think, for anyone in the position that you are seeking, that would be the appropriate position. And with that, I yield back. Senator Armstrong. Good morning, and, uh, this question's first for, uh, to Mr. Macy, please. So, uh, you mentioned in your testimony about the backlog that exists, and I heard your response to Senator Kim there in that regard, but just curious if there's other ways that you see that we can really improve the efficiency in moving through the backlog that exists?

Well, thank you, Senator. As you know, I haven't had the opportunity to be at the board. I look forward to that, and if confirmed, I look forward to working on that with the other board members in that regard. I don't know enough about that yet to comment other than the willingness, as cases are distributed amongst the board, to make that efficient and effective. The other aspect of it, having a pretty long career in collective bargaining in the background of it, I also welcome— hear the concerns of the panel and welcome the opportunity for advice and consent down the road in that regard.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then secondly, and, you know, I come from a business background, and I wonder about how you get a feedback loop about some of the practical, very pragmatic, on-the-ground issues that Senator Hawley mentioned a while ago, and how you kind of have a window into what's really happening on the front lines of issues like that. I appreciate that as well, because with my background, there wasn't a day that went by that I wasn't on the phone or in a meeting with a small business or medium business or an employee or union rep, as far as that goes, to talk about the practical impacts of all of this on a daily basis. That is something I welcome the opportunity to bring to the board with that background of everyday real-life experience.

Yeah, so do you, do you envision setting up some kind of process or feedback loop that gives— that is a place where you can really take in? Because I'm sure that's a very large set of squeaky wheels out there, but curious how you actually convert that into things that you can take action on. Thank you, and I welcome that opportunity too. As Senator Johnson had indicated as we began the hearing today, I've been involved in, in many organizations and community activities and welcome the input. I think we get good solutions that way.

I agree And I hear in my capacity working here in D.C. with the agencies that I do that we get some voice, but I agree with you that I don't think we get enough voice. So I really am looking forward to being out and about and getting the voice of the small employers, the business reps, the union reps, the others that are out day to day and not necessarily just the voice here. Yeah, great. Thank you. Appreciate that.

And to Mr. Matsumoto, Boy, uh, what, what a challenge you have in terms of, with, as you mentioned in your testimony, the issue of having less and less, lower and lower response rates. And curious, and, and yet people are look at that data as though it's the same, and despite the reduction that we have. So what are you— and I, I noticed you're comments on this, but I wonder what specifically you intend to do about trying to mitigate that or collecting other data. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Yeah, so thank you for the question.

I agree that it's very important. Probably the first step is to determine just how much of an impact the decline in response rates is having and making that clear to data users. So to make sure that all of the survey programs have up-to-date non-response analyses published on the webpage. That will help us to determine what effect the declining response rates is having, and then we can start thinking about what some of the potential solutions could be. Now, there could be some ways to maybe incentivize response that could be examined.

There's a lot of challenges with that. However, I do think ultimately there is an end date to the survey-based system. I don't know when that will be, but it's something that I believe we should be preparing to address. And so any— you know, I believe that sort of all the programs should be looking at ways to incorporate or at least research ways to incorporate alternative datasets. And do you think there's some threshold that you'll reach?

Your point is it's going to keep declining and likely have to shift gears on that. Do you think there's some point where you have to announce to the businesses that depend on that, that, that it may not be reliable and as something we can rely on for the future? Yeah. And that's why I believe that the non-response studies are essential. A decline in response rate does not necessarily mean that there's an issue with the data, but you could reach a level where you just do not have enough respondents to get a representative sample.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The public should be aware of Senator Blunt Rochester.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the nominees for being present. I'm pleased that we are considering a bipartisan pair of nominees. Because the partisan dismissal of Democratic board members and commissioners across agencies throughout the duration of the administration has hampered good policy, also oversight, as well as been just unacceptable. I want to start with my questions for Dr. Matsumoto. First of all, to say it's good to see another blue hen.

Here in the cap— at the Capitol. As you know, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was first established in 1884, 142 years ago. And since then, it has provided critically important information about our labor market and economy. I served as Delaware Secretary of Labor. And so to me, the data is so important.

As BLS commissioner, you would be charged with maintaining trust in the data BLS provides to the American people, like inflation measures and job reports. You've been at BLS for about a decade. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay.

In the decade that you've been with the agency, was there a time when you think our country should not have trusted or should have doubted the work of the agency? Yeah, so I, I just want to say that, uh, in my time working at BLS, um, I, I've had plenty of great experiences, uh, with my coworkers. Um, it is, it is really the, the dedication and professionalism of the staff of BLS is really something that is impressive. Um, and ultimately, this is not a job I would want if I did not have full faith in the staff at the agency. Thank you.

Um, I know you are affectionately known as a data nerd. That's what I've read.

During your time, did you ever believe that the jobs report numbers or any numbers were being faked?

So I believe there are technical reasons that could explain perhaps these larger revisions. But no, no, I did not. Okay, thank you. I'm glad that in your testimony and comments here that you committed to maintaining the independence of the BLS. Unfortunately, and we've seen it right here in this committee, that nominees and appointees have found it very hard to either abide by the promises.

Either they get into the job and then they have to walk it back, or they get fired. And so I hope if you are confirmed, your experience is not, not the same. I would love to ask, as commissioner in this digital age with new technologies and complex labor market challenges, including the impacts of AI, how would you approach BLS modernization? Are there things that you would do differently from past commissioners? Tell me a little bit about that vision.

Yes. So I think given the resource constraints faced by the agency, I am very interested in the potential use of these new tools to help with the work at the agency. And now, of course, there are a lot of challenges to using these tools in a statistical agency where you're dealing with non-public personally identifiable data, pre-release data. And so certainly, I view what my role as commissioner would be is just to help whatever the barriers are to the adoption of these tools. To address them so that the staff has access to them.

You mentioned resources, and that would— you preempted my next question, which is, do you believe that the BLS budget is sufficient to deliver current products and invest in modernization? So ultimately, that's a question for Congress. Congress will set the budget, and I will work with whatever is allocated. Although I do hope to have some input into the process. Yeah, because as former Secretary of Labor, I put forward proposals.

I knew what my dream list was. I knew how I wanted to meet the mission. So that's why I asked the question, do you think that you have the resources? So it's certainly something that I will evaluate if confirmed. The current status of the agency.

I am at 15 seconds. I will submit a question to the record for a real focus on AI and your approach to AI and how you would lead in this era. And also, again, I'm concerned that even if you're— even if you are confirmed, we've actually seen people either walk back things or be fired. So I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Secretary, asking questions, you know what I'm saying?

I should have handed you the gavel. Yeah. Senator Osso-Brooks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you as well to all of our nominees for being here today. I'm sorry. Excuse me. Markey is next. I'm sorry.

I apologize. No, no, she can go. Okay, great. Osso-Brooks. Over Memorial Day, my constituents drove to picnics and parades after filling up their cars at $4.51 a gallon.

The average electricity bill in Maryland has hovered around $180 a month, and the cost of groceries continues to rise. As many as 5 million Americans have lost their marketplace insurance because of this administration. This has made their healthcare less affordable, and many Marylanders are working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet. And they're seeing that it still doesn't all add up. And this is all while this president is claiming that the economy is booming.

President Trump promised to lower costs if he was elected, and he's not talking about lowering gas prices, grocery prices, or the cost of housing. In fact, when questioned about what he thought of Americans' financial financial situation, he responded he doesn't— he's not thinking about their financial situation. So my first question is for Mr. Matsumoto, and I wonder, Mr. Matsumoto, would you agree with the president that this economy is booming? So as Commissioner of Labor Statistics, I don't think it's appropriate that I be viewed as either a cheerleader or a critic of the economy, no matter what's happening. I think it's important that there's faith that the data being presented are being published correctly.

I'm not asking you to be a cheerleader, but let me just ask you this. Do you know how much, for example, the cost of ground beef has increased over the last year? I do, because it is a category in the consumer price index. It was 21%. Do you know how much the cost of orange juice has increased over the past year?

I do not. About 23%. And so you, you, sir, are currently a White House senior economist at the White House and at the Council of Economic Advisers. And so I'm sure that you're also just paying attention to, to grocery prices and the rising cost. And so do you acknowledge then that grocery prices have increased for Americans?

I believe that the CPI data are accurate. In that matter. Meaning yes, they have increased, correct? Uh, yeah, I believe grocery prices in the CPI have increased, yes. Okay.

And you acknowledge that gas prices have increased for Americans since the start of this administration as well?

Um, yeah, that's easy, right? Yeah. Like, like I said, um, you know, my, my focus is on making sure that the data presented are, are right. Well, you're saying that these— this is accurate data. The gas prices have increased, the healthcare prices, those have increased as well, right?

You're a senior economist. I'm, I'm asking you, you, you, you know the answer to these, right? Uh, the, yeah. So, uh, my role at the CEA is to provide, uh, uh, feedback and analysis. No, no, no, no.

I'm just asking a specific question. Do you acknowledge that healthcare prices have increased for Americans since the start of the administration? Um, I believe the CPI is accurate in that matter. Okay. So then do you still agree with the president that despite rising costs for Americans, that the economy is booming?

Uh, again, that is not a type of statement that, that the BLS commissioner would make. What I'm saying, does the data support that? Uh, the, the BLS presents data, uh, objectively. It does not make—. Okay.

Well, sir, it's just, it's not intellectually honest to to say that rising prices, Americans can't afford the cost, and to say that the economy is booming for them. Is that fair to say?

Um, I didn't quite follow. Okay, well, let me go to another question. So in February, White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett called for Federal Reserve staff to be disciplined over an independent report that concluded tariffs were harming American businesses and consumers.. And I led many of my colleagues in a letter to Director Hassett demanding that he retract his suggestion that civil servants should be punished for producing data demonstrating the true cost of the Trump tariffs. And so do you agree that Director Hassett's comments were inappropriate?

I believe that Director Hassett addressed that. No, no, I'm saying, do you believe that it's appropriate to, to discipline civil servants for providing data and information consistent with their jobs? Uh, I do not. Okay. And will you then pledge to resist any political pressure from this White House on the Bureau of Labor Statistics— Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly inflation reporting, especially as it relates to tariff-driven price increases on goods and services?

Uh, again, I fully commit committed to maintaining the integrity and independence of the BLS and that the data produced are that produced by the career staff at the BLS. Okay, thanks so much.

Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For too long, the rules of our economy have tilted towards corporate power and away from working people. Productivity is up, profits have soared, executive compensation has exploded, but millions of Americans are struggling to afford housing, healthcare, gas, and even groceries. In a word, they are being denied their dignity.

We have to shift the balance of power back to the side of everyday working people. Americans need a strong and independent Bureau of Labor Statistics. Americans need a strong and independent National Labor Relations Board. Yet our fraudster-in-chief, Donald Trump, cares more about lining the pockets of his billionaire CEO buddies and trying to cook the books than in having independent agencies protect the legal rights of workers. So let us not forget why we have vacancies before us today, because Trump thinks the government works for him and not for the people of our country.

The numbers published by BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics, don't belong to the president. They don't belong to Wall Street. Or the corporate executives. They belong to the American people. Bureau of Labor Statistics data tells us whether wages are rising, whether families have to spend more to put food on the table, whether employment is up or down.

Facts can't bend to political pressure. So, Dr., uh, I hope you will hold firm against the full-on assault on scientific and statistical objectivity. The American people deserve nothing less than for you to be a barrier against the rising tide of political interference from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But information alone is not enough. Workers need power.

That's where the National Labor Relations Board comes in. The NLRB exists to protect the rights of workers to unionize on their own without interference from their employer. But let's be clear, um, this is not an even playing field. Working people need federal agencies that will have their back and enforce the law. You only need 3 things in politics, in public service: backbone, backbone, and backbone.

And the backbones of everyone over at this agency is going to be challenged by Donald Trump every single day. So you have to show that spine. You have to show that courage. Mr. Prowdy, I'm grateful for your continued service on the board. Could you explain to us why Congress set up the NLRB as an independent agency under the National Labor Relations Act?

Well, thank you for the question, Senator. Uh, the act was enacted in the midst of the Depression in order to facilitate facilitate labor-management relations and to protect the rights of workers to organize and to enforce that right, uh, by the, by the protection of federal law. Yeah. And, um, are you concerned about its ability to continue to play that role, looking at what is unfolding across the, um, economic landscape from the perspective of White House pressure being imposed to deny the reality of the state of our economy. Senator, as a member of the board, all I can do is adjudicate the cases before me and interpret the act and apply the facts to the law.

The cases are brought in the area of labor-management relations, and it's an act that was designed specifically, as I said, to protect the rights of workers. Again, my concern is that Gas prices are up. The, um, we saw today a dramatic rise in the costs of living, of inflation. It's absolutely real, uh, and it's rumbling right through people's lives, uh, and they can see it at the kitchen table every single day. Gas prices are up, food prices are up, healthcare costs are up, housing costs are up.

Everything is up, up, up, up., and that cost is going to cascade right down into the lives of ordinary families all across our country. Um, and the NLRB is there in order to ensure that workers have their rights, that workers can argue for higher wages to deal with higher inflation, with higher cost of living, with higher affordability costs. That's the job of ensuring that workers get the protections they need now to deal with this economic catastrophe which has been unleashed by the Trump administration. And that's going to be the job of the NLRB, to make sure those rights are protected. So thank you, Mr. Proudy, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Record from the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the National Retail Federation, And the National Association of Manufacturers, without objection. For any senator wishing to ask additional questions, questions for the records will be due at 5 p.m. tomorrow, June 11th. Thank you again for being here. The committee stands adjourned.