U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–989 PDF 2017

S. Hrg. 114–588 

PENDING NOMINATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. PATRICK PIZZELLA, NOMINEE TO BE A 

MEMBER, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY, JULIE H. BECKER, 

NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, STEVEN N. BERK, NOMINEE TO BE AN 

ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, AND ELIZABETH WINGO, NOMINEE TO BE AN 

ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARCH 2, 2016 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Chief Counsel 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Deputy Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs 

and Federal Management 

NATHAN R. KACZMARER, Counsel, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs 

and Federal Management 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

KATHERINE C. SYBENGA, Minority Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Ernst .................................................................................................... 11 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 13 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 16 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 25 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 27 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 

Hon. Patrick Pizzella, Nominee to be a Member, Federal Labor Relations 

Authority 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 34 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 57 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 59 

Julie H. Becker, Nominee to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 

District of Columbia 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 62 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 98 

Steven N. Berk, Nominee to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 

District of Columbia 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 100 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 119 

Elizabeth C. Wingo, Nominee to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 121 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 155 

APPENDIX 

Statement submitted by the Honorable Paul Strauss, Shadow Senator from 

the District of Columbia ...................................................................................... 29 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS HEARING 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Lankford, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Lankford, Ayotte, Ernst, Carper, Heitkamp, 

and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Good morning. Today we will consider the 

nominations of Ms. Julie Becker, Mr. Steven Berk, and Ms. Elizabeth Wingo for the position of Associate Judge on the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia, as well as the nomination of Mr. 

Patrick Pizzella to be a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The Committee takes these nominations extremely 

seriously, so we are pleased to have strong nominees before us 

today. 

The Superior Court for the District of Columbia is a busy place, 

with more than 100,000 cases heard each year. I am proud to say 

that these three superior court nominees will mark the 5th, 6th, 

and 7th that the Committee has considered in just the past year. 

This is more than triple the number of nominees who received 

hearings during the entire 113th Congress. 

Julie Becker is a native of Detroit, Michigan. She received her 

Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Michigan and her 

law degree from Yale Law School. After graduation, Ms. Becker 

clerked for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Circuit 

Court of Appeals. Currently, Ms. Becker is a supervising attorney 

at Legal Aid where she has spent the past 14 years. 

Steven Berk is originally from Chicago, Illinois. He received his 

undergraduate degree from Washington University in St. Louis. He 

has a Master’s degree from the London School of Economics and a 

law degree from Boston College Law School. Mr. Berk has worked 

at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and practiced at several 

prestigious law firms. 

Elizabeth Wingo is a native of Washington, D.C. She received her 

Bachelor of Arts from Dartmouth College and her law degree from 

Yale Law School. Following law school, she clerked for Judge T.S. 

Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia. Ms. Wingo worked as a 

prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia 
2 

and for the District of Columbia’s Attorney General’s (AG) office before being appointed as a magistrate for the superior court in 2006. 

In addition to these impressive resumes, Ms. Becker, Mr. Berk, 

and Ms. Wingo possess the necessary legal skills and judgment to 

serve the District of Columbia. 

Mr. Pizzella is a native of Rochelle, New York. Rochelle? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Rochelle. 

Senator LANKFORD. Rochelle. Thank you. Sorry, an Oklahoman 

trying to pronounce a New York name. I will just take it under advisement. 

He received his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of 

South Carolina. After graduation, he served in a variety of government entities, including the General Services Administration 

(GSA), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Department 

of Education, and the Department of Labor (DOL). In 2013, he was 

appointed to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

Committee staff has reached out to a variety of these nominees’ 

colleagues and affiliates, who all spoke highly of them. You would 

be very impressed at the kind of things many people that were 

interviewed said about each of you. 

Committee staff has also had the opportunity to be able to interview Ms. Becker, Mr. Berk, Ms. Wingo, and Mr. Pizzella on an 

array of issues, ranging from notable cases to community service 

and pro bono work. They have thoughtfully and competently answered each of the questions to our satisfaction. 

To date, the Committee has found you to be qualified for the positions you have been nominated to, and I look forward to speaking 

with you a bit more today on your experience and accomplishments 

and how you intend to bring them to bear in a fair and impartial 

manner for the FLRA and the District of Columbia. 

With that, I would recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Carper, for any opening statement he would like to 

make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Senator Lankford. I want to thank you 

and I want to thank your staff for moving these nominations forward. We are, I think, fortunate—the people of the District of Columbia are fortunate to have men and women with the kind of credentials as the three of you bring, and they would probably be 

pleased about the other credentials for the fourth person, too. 

So thank you for moving these along. I like to say justice delayed 

is justice denied, and I am happy to see us moving these forward. 

I want to welcome not only the nominees but certainly members of 

their families that are here, including some very young ones. And 

we are happy that you have joined us, and we appreciate the parents who have raised at least one of these young people, and the 

children and the spouses that are willing to share your loved ones 

with the folks of this town. 

I want to start by welcome Patrick—is it Pizzella? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Correct, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Pizzella, OK. Who has been renominated to be 

a member, as we heard, of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

That is an Authority that plays an important role, as we know, in 
3 

promoting constructive relationships between management and 

unions and, in turn, helps improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the Federal Government. 

Mr. Pizzella has had a long career in public service, including the 

past few years serving in the position to which he has been now 

renominated, and we are grateful for his service and his willingness to continue to serve in this very important role. 

I am also pleased today that we are considering three nominees 

for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Julie Becker, 

Steven Berk, and Elizabeth Wingo all have very impressive backgrounds and legal careers that I believe make them extremely well 

qualified to serve as judges on the Superior Court. And we thank 

you all for joining us and for your willingness to serve. 

Before I close so we can hear from our nominees, I just want to 

note again how pleased I am that, in the last months of last year, 

the Senate finally moved to confirm nominees to fill four other vacancies on the D.C. Superior Court. 

That said, I thought it was shameful that it took us 2 years to 

get two of those judges confirmed. But I am delighted that we have 

started to move nominees more quickly now, and I hope we can 

continue that momentum with these three nominees and others to 

the Superior Court as we go forward. 

Most Americans probably do not know that local judges in the 

District of Columbia must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. I will 

have to admit I did not know that a number of years ago. But 

while these judgeships are comparable to the State courts that 

each of us is familiar with in our respective States, the D.C. Superior Court and Court of Appeals are operated by the Federal Government, not by the local government here. Their judges are appointed by the President from a slate of candidates thoroughly vetted and recommended by a nonpartisan nomination commission. 

They must then be confirmed by the Senate in order to serve 15- 

year terms. 

But these courts do not handle Federal matters. They are the 

local courts for the District of Columbia and hear cases related to 

local crimes and domestic and civil disputes between the people 

who live here in the District. 

I know of no other jurisdiction in our country that must have its 

local judges approved by the Congress. And no other State or locality is denied the representation here in the Senate that might help 

it pursue its priorities here, including nominations. 

Some have suggested that local D.C. judges should not have to 

go through Senate confirmation. I continue to believe that we ought 

to seriously consider that idea. But at a minimum, we should develop an expedited process for the confirmation of these local 

judges, as we have for some other positions that also have required 

Senate confirmation in the past but do not anymore. 

In the meantime, I hope that the Senate will move forward 

quickly on the nominees we are considering today. I believe that 

the people of the District of Columbia are fortunate that men and 

women as impressive as you are willing to go through a protracted 

nominating process, a great deal of scrutiny, and a full measure of 

uncertainty—which can stretch out in some cases for years—all for 

the possibility that they may one day serve on the bench in the 
4 

1The prepared statement of Hon. Pizzella appears in the Appendix on page 33. 

District of Columbia. In this case, it has not taken that long. Mr. 

Chairman, to you and your staff and others who worked hard, and 

my staff, we thank you all. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

It is the custom of this Committee to swear in all witnesses that 

appear before us, so if you do not mind, if you would please stand, 

raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are 

about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. I do. 

Ms. BECKER. I do. 

Mr. BERK. I do. 

Ms. WINGO. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. You may be seated, and let the 

record reflect all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We will all do opening statements on this. I would ask you a 

favor, that when you do your oral opening statements you all introduce your family. I have had the opportunity to be able to meet 

your family, but many people in this room have not. So if you 

could, when you make your opening statements, also introduce 

your family, that would be a great honor for everyone here in the 

room as well. 

Mr. Pizzella, since you are the experienced one on this, if you 

want to be able to make any opening statement—you have been 

through this rigor before—we would receive your oral testimony if 

you have any at this point. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK PIZZELLA,1 NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER, FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Thank you. Unfortunately, I am unable to introduce my family because my wife is taking care of a family matter— 

but thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Lankford and Senator 

Carper and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you and 

your staff for all the courtesies shown to me as I have prepared for 

this hearing. Given the seriousness of the issues that presently 

confront you, I am especially appreciative of the time you have 

taken to ensure that the Federal Labor Relations Authority operates at full strength. 

This is the fourth time I have had the privilege of being nominated by a President for a position of public trust. I am honored 

that the President nominated me once again to be a member of the 

Federal Labor Relations Authority, and, if confirmed, I will continue to dedicate myself to discharging the responsibilities of the 

FLRA in accordance with laws, rules, and regulations. 

I began my tenure in Federal service in the early 1980s, and I 

believe my 23 years of experience in the Executive Branch will continue to be an asset to the FLRA. 

I enjoyed the past 2 years as a member of the FLRA and with 

your support hope to continue in that role. 

I am looking forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 
5 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Becker appears in the Appendix on page 73. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Ms. Becker. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIE H. BECKER,1 NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today as a nominee to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. It is a great honor to be nominated and 

considered for this position. I would like to thank the Judicial 

Nomination Commission and its Chair, the Honorable Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House, and I thank the 

President for nominating me. 

I am here today with my parents, sitting behind me, Allan and 

Patricia Becker, and my husband, Alan Silverleib. I am immeasurably grateful for their love and support and for the joy I receive 

every day from my 3-year-old daughters, Anna and Rebecca, who 

are at school today. I am also fortunate to be joined by a number 

of friends, mentors, and colleagues who have encouraged me not 

only during this process, but throughout my career as an attorney. 

I would not be here today without them. 

I have spent the past 15 years at the Legal Aid Society of the 

District of Columbia. I have been privileged to work with hundreds 

of individuals and families to secure and maintain decent, safe, and 

affordable housing. I have represented clients in every ward of the 

city, and I have dedicated my career to the goal of ensuring that 

all members of our community have meaningful access to the legal 

system. 

The vast majority of my work as an attorney has taken place in 

D.C. Superior Court. I have tried cases in its courtrooms, spent 

time in the clerks’ offices, and negotiated settlements in the hallways. I have served on two of the court’s Rules Committees, helping to write and revise rules of procedure for the Landlord and 

Tenant Branch and the Housing Conditions Calendar. These experiences have given me the opportunity to think critically about 

every aspect of court proceedings and to help create a better, more 

efficient process for all parties. 

Over the years, I have learned a great deal from judges on the 

Superior Court bench about the skill, patience, and dedication that 

the job requires. I look forward to the challenge of living up to their 

example. If I am confirmed, I will work every day to ensure that 

the law is applied fairly in every case, and that all parties appearing in court are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. 

Thank you again for the honor of considering my nomination. I 

look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Mr. Berk. 
6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Berk appears in the Appendix on page 111. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN N. BERK,1 NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. BERK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am honored and 

truly humbled to appear before you today as a nominee for the position of Associate Judge of the Superior Court for the District of 

Columbia. I would like to thank the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission, and in particular its Chairman, Federal District Court 

Judge Emmet Sullivan, who was nice enough to come here today. 

Senator CARPER. Would you raise your hand, please? Higher? 

Welcome. Good to see you. 

Judge SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. BERK. I would like to thank the White House and I would 

like to thank the President for nominating me. And I would like 

to acknowledge my colleagues, friends, and family who are here 

today and have been with me throughout this journey. 

I would like to recognize first my two sons, Corey and Jacob, who 

are actually twins—it may not seem like that, but you can try to 

guess who is older. And I would like to recognize my mother, who 

is here from Chicago, sitting right behind me. She raised me to always strive for excellence in whatever I did and whatever I chose 

to pursue. 

And, finally, to my wife, Jenny, who is also behind me, who has 

never wavered in her support of me, picking me up when my spirits lagged, and believing in me sometimes more than I believed in 

myself. 

Someone who I wish were here today is my father, who died last 

year after a long and valiant battle with cancer. At the close of 

World War II, American soldiers liberated my dad from the Dachau 

concentration camp in Germany. He was days from death, suffering 

from profound malnutrition and typhus. He eventually regained his 

health and came to the United States as an orphan in 1948. Two 

years later, he was a member of the United States Army serving 

two tours of duty on the front lines in Korea before returning to 

Chicago, marrying my mom, and eventually becoming a successful 

entrepreneur. He loved this country, and I miss him very much 

today. 

I attended law school because I was interested in public service. 

That interest brought me to Washington in 1989 where I worked 

as a prosecutor at the Securities and Exchange Commission and 

the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. 

After leaving the U.S. Attorney’s Office, I went on to become a 

partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block. In more recent days, 

I have been representing individuals such as defrauded investors, 

consumers, small business owners, and whistleblowers. I have had 

a 30-year career in the law, and in those 30 years, I have appeared 

in courtrooms throughout the country in administrative proceedings, Federal court, State courts, and legislative bodies. 

Over the past 5 years, I have continued to demonstrate a commitment to public service by volunteering for and being elected to 

leadership positions at the D.C. Bar. I served as a member of and 
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Wingo appears in the Appendix on page 132. 

later chair of the Judicial Evaluations Committee. I have also been 

elected treasurer and currently sit as a member of the Board of 

Governors. 

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will commit to having 

everyone in my courtroom treated with dignity and respect. I will 

be decisive and make timely and thoughtful decisions. And I will 

be prepared each day to dispense with justice. 

Thank you for your consideration of my nomination, and I will 

be pleased to answer any of your questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. Ms. Wingo. 

TESTIMONY OF ELIZABETH C. WINGO,1 NOMINEE TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

Ms. WINGO. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as you 

consider my nomination to be an Associate Judge of the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia. I would like to thank the Judicial Nomination Commission and its chair, the Honorable Emmet 

Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House, and I would 

like to thank President Obama for nominating me. In addition, I 

would like to express my thanks and appreciation to the Committee Members and the Committee staff for their hard work and 

for considering my nomination so expeditiously. 

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Chief Judge Lee 

Satterfield for his leadership, his support, and his presence here 

today. 

Senator CARPER. Would he raise his hand—Lee Satterfield? 

Thank you, sir. Welcome. 

Judge SATTERFIELD. Thank you. 

Ms. WINGO. I am also very fortunate to have a number of members of my family, who have been very supportive, here with me 

to today, and I would like to introduce and thank them: my husband, Harry Wingo; my children, Alexandra and Natalie Wingo—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Which, by the way, I discussed with them 

possibly them doing testimony later as well. [Laughter.] 

And they declined that. 

Ms. WINGO. I also have here my parents, Tony and Judy Carroll; 

my brother and sister-in-law, Tom and Katherine Carroll; my sister 

and brother-in-law, Michaela and Ted Lizas, and their children, my 

nieces Amy and CC Lizas. 

Senator CARPER. Is that all? [Laughter.] 

Ms. WINGO. I would also like to acknowledge and thank my stepdaughter, Hailey, who is a junior in high school and was unable to 

be here today. 

Finally, I would also like to thank the many friends and current 

and former colleagues who have supported me over the years, some 

of whom are also present here today. 

I was born and raised in the District of Columbia and have spent 

most of my legal career serving the citizens of the District. After 

clerking for the Honorable T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia, I spent 4 years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District 
8 

of Columbia, prosecuting a wide variety of crimes, from misdemeanor simple assaults to homicides. Following my time at the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, I continued to work on behalf of the people 

of the District at the Office of the Attorney General for the District 

of Columbia, where I served as the Chief of the Criminal Section 

and then as the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Public Safety. 

Since 2006, I have had the honor of serving as a magistrate 

judge in the Superior Court, where I have had the opportunity to 

preside over calendars in the Criminal and Civil Divisions, as well 

as in the Family Court and Domestic Violence Unit. It would be a 

privilege and an honor for me to continue my public service as an 

associate judge in the Superior Court. 

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

Senator LANKFORD. I thank all of you. 

There are three questions that I am going to ask for this entire 

group, and I am going to need an oral yes or no on this. What I 

will do is I will ask the question and then we will just go down the 

row. It will be very informal. Sorry about that. These are questions 

that we find extremely important to be able to ask every candidate 

as they come through. 

First—and I will ask all four of you to answer this question yes 

or no—is there anything that you are aware of in your background 

that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office 

to which you have been nominated? Mr. Pizzella. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. No, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. No. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. No. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Wingo. 

Ms. WINGO. No. 

Senator LANKFORD. Second question: Do you know of anything, 

personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from 

fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 

which you have been nominated? Mr. Pizzella 

Mr. PIZZELLA. No, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. No, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. No, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Wingo. 

Ms. WINGO. No, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Third, do you agree without reservation to comply with any request or summons to appear and to testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? Mr. Pizzella. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Yes, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. I do. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. Yes, sir. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Wingo. 
9 

Ms. WINGO. Yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. I recognize Ranking Member 

Carper for any questions. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you so much. 

Those were wonderful testimonies. I was especially touched, Mr. 

Berk, by the story you told us about your dad and shared that with 

us. What a guy. What a life he lived. And I appreciated the lovely 

comments that you have made about your mom and about your 

wife. Those are lovely—and all of you for introducing your family 

and friends. It is one of my very favorite parts of these hearings, 

so we are glad that you are all here. 

I just want to start with a quick question, if I can, for you, Ms. 

Wingo. The role of a magistrate judge is a bit different, as you 

know better than anybody else, the role of an associate judge. Just 

take 30 seconds and describe some of the differences. 

Ms. WINGO. One of the primary differences is that an associate 

judge has a broader range of responsibilities. There are calendars 

that associate judges are assigned to that magistrate judges do not 

handle. There is also a broader range of types of things that an associate judge can do, the biggest one being jury trials. A magistrate 

judge does not handle jury trials, so we, generally speaking are 

limited to misdemeanors; whereas, an associate judge can handle 

the jury trials and, therefore, can handle anything in the court. 

Senator CARPER. Take another 30 seconds and just give these 

two people closest to you, Mr. Berk and Ms. Becker, just give them 

some friendly advice. [Laughter.] 

Ms. WINGO. Well—— 

Senator CARPER. Unfriendly advice. [Laughter.] 

Ms. WINGO. Truly, the friendly advice that I would give is to rely 

on your colleagues, because I have found at the court that there is 

no greater resource and that there is no greater willingness anywhere in any employment for your colleagues to help you out. The 

other judges, the staff, the clerks—everyone is very supportive of 

each other, and everybody is working toward the same goal, which 

is to ensure that there is equal justice for all. And so you should 

feel free to rely on those folks if you need them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Thanks for that advice. 

I would note that our judicial nominees come from very different 

legal backgrounds and have focused on certain areas of the law 

throughout your career. That is not uncommon. However, if confirmed, I understand that you will preside over time over cases 

arising under many different areas of the law. And we have a similar situation with the Federal district court judges in Delaware. 

But how has your career prepared each of you to handle the wide 

range of legal issues that you will confront as an associate judge? 

And how will you ensure that you are prepared to preside over 

cases in areas of law which you may be not as familiar with? Ms. 

Becker, do you want to lead off on that one? Then Mr. Berk. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Senator. I certainly would have a lot to 

learn, particularly in divisions in which I have not frequently appeared, and I will say I look forward to the challenge of learning 

new areas of the law. 

I think what I would come in with is that the folks that I have 

been representing during my career are, by and large, the litigants 
10 

who appear in D.C. Superior Court. And I have had quite a lot of 

experience working with individuals of all education levels and, by 

and large, people who are not familiar with and not comfortable 

with the legal system. 

And so what I have gained from those experiences is I think primarily communication skills. I can listen to the story that a person 

tells and be able to extract from that story what are the legally relevant facts for deciding the case. And I have also become good at 

communicating sometimes complex legal concepts in a way that is 

accessible to people who are not lawyers. 

Senator CARPER. OK, good. 

Mr. Berk, same question. How will you ensure that you are prepared to preside over cases in areas that you are not as familiar 

with? 

Mr. BERK. If I may, Senator, let me just say that Ms. Wingo has 

been terrifically generous with both of us in terms of giving us the 

insights for today’s hearing. 

Senator CARPER. No kidding. 

Mr. BERK. She has been great. 

Senator CARPER. Isn’t that against the rules? [Laughter.] 

Senator LANKFORD. No. But that does mean the harder questions 

will gear toward her then the rest of the day. 

Senator CARPER. OK. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BERK. I am sorry if I got you in trouble. 

Senator CARPER. You are OK. 

Mr. BERK. I have been practicing law 30 years. It goes quickly. 

And I have been fortunate, very lucky to be able to practice in jurisdictions all over the country and to do different types of cases. 

It has been heartening. I will get phone calls from people, and they 

will say, ‘‘Have you done something like this?’’ And I will be, like, 

‘‘No, but I am willing to try.’’ And I think on the Superior Court 

there will be things that I have not seen before, certain areas of 

the law that I am not as familiar with. 

But I am very familiar with getting up to speed quickly on matters, and I am confident that those skills can be used by me if I 

am lucky enough to be confirmed. 

There are areas where there is probate and there is tax and 

there is property and landlord-tenant. I have not done those areas. 

But I have applied facts to law, and at the end of the day, that is 

what lawyers do and judges do, is apply facts to the law and respect the rule of law. And so regardless of the type of case it is, 

I think those basic sort of tenets are with you, and I am confident 

I can provide good judging on a wide array of cases. 

Senator CARPER. The situation you face as a new associate judge 

will be not unlike what we face in coming here as a new Senator. 

We end up with assignments to committees. Some of us come as 

attorney generals. Some of us come as leaders in our State. Senator 

Lankford has an incredible background, a military background and 

other things. But I ended up on this Committee, and I could barely 

spell ‘‘cybersecurity,’’ and I ended up as the Chairman of the Committee a couple of years ago. And there was a profile done of the 

new Chairman of the Committee, and they noted that I was the 

Senate expert on cybersecurity at the time. And I showed this to 

my staff, and I said, ‘‘Look at this. Now I am the expert on 
11 

cybersecurity.’’ And they said, ‘‘In the land of the blind, the oneeyed man is king.’’ [Laughter.] 

So do not get too puffed up. 

A question for you, Mr. Pizzella. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Could you just discuss with our colleagues here 

how you and your fellow members of the FLRA achieved the goal 

of significantly reducing the backlog—you had a huge backlog, and 

I think you now have reduced the amount of time that it takes to 

issue a timely decision. Just briefly, how did you do it? How did 

you guys do it? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Well, the backlog was acquired because for a period of about a year there was a lack of a quorum. That was primarily what did it. And the Senate, when we had nominations 

made by the President, moved rather quickly to get a quorum in 

place. Both my colleagues, each had served as Chairman of the 

Federal Labor Relations Authority at one time or another before, 

and so they had much more experience than I did. And it took me 

a little while to get up to speed, but once we got going, we got 

going. And in the first year, for instance, 70 percent of the cases 

that we issued decisions on were unanimous. And that pattern has 

continued because the law is the law. 

So we worked cooperatively and collegially and shared resources 

when necessary among offices, and we were able to put the backlog 

behind us. 

Senator CARPER. Oh, good. My time has expired. I have to go to 

another meeting. I will stay here for a while and hear some of the 

questions, but I have to leave. But I want to thank you again for 

being here and for all who have joined you. Thank you. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERNST 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of 

you for your great service. You all have many years of valuable experience that you will take into these positions, so thank you for 

that. And thanks for the lovely introduction of all of your family 

and friends. And, Mr. Berk, to you, that was a great introduction 

of your family and many blessings to your family in the absence 

of your father. He sounds like an extraordinary man, so thank you 

for that. I appreciate that very much. 

To Ms. Wingo, Ms. Becker, and Mr. Berk, a very easy question, 

actually. Please describe your current thoughts on what it means 

to be an independent judge as well as the importance of judicial 

independence. Ms. Wingo, if we could start with you, please. 

Ms. WINGO. Judicial independence means that a judge is able to 

make decisions based on the evidence in the case before it and the 

law as applied to that evidence free from outside pressures, free 

from outside considerations. I think that it is essential to achieving 

the goal of equal access to justice for all, and that is one of the fundamental goals of the judicial system, and in the Superior Court 

in particular. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. Yes, I think about the time that I spent being the 

chair of the Judicial Evaluations Committee here at the D.C. Bar 
12 

and looking at what lawyers would say about judges. And, by and 

large, judges are rated quite highly, but there are some that are 

not. And it is because of some—not so much a flaw but a perception 

that they are not being independent, that they are flawed by preconceived ideas or notions or where they came from. And I hope to 

think that because my perspective is broad, because I have been on 

all sides of the table—I have been on the government side of the 

table, the defense side of the table, the plaintiff side of the table— 

that I can be independent because I understand everyone’s perspective. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. 

Mr. BERK. And I think that will be helpful. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you very much. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you. I think that independence is really inherent, possibly central to the role of the judge. A judge has to be 

able to make decisions based on the facts that are presented in 

that individual case and applying the law that is governing to 

those facts, free from any outside pressures of any kind. And if a 

judge cannot do that, then we have a problem. 

Senator ERNST. Exactly. Thank you. Very good. 

And, Mr. Pizzella, a little tougher one for you. You dissented in 

a July 2014 opinion regarding a union grievance about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) decision to block access 

to personal email on government computers without first offering 

an opportunity for collective bargaining. And to paraphrase your 

dissent, you suggested that Federal agencies should not be required 

to bargain with the union before they can act to secure the integrity of the Federal information technology (IT) systems. This became an issue again last year when, following the devastating 

breach at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency 

attempted to block access from government computers to certain 

websites that they deemed security risks. But the union threatened 

a lawsuit, and, ironically, then the union also sued OPM for failing 

to protect Federal Government employees’ information. And just a 

note. My husband and I were also included in those that had information that was leaked. 

I have great concerns about how the 2014 FLRA decision could 

be used to inhibit Federal agencies’ efforts to enhance their cyber 

defenses. As OPM Acting Director Beth Cobert acknowledged during her recent confirmation hearing before this Committee, personal email accounts are the way a lot of threats come in. 

So, accordingly, for the Committee’s benefit, could you elaborate 

on your dissent from that 2014 case? And if you can provide us 

with any update on that situation as well. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Yes, thank you, Senator. I did feel strongly about 

that at the time. The dissent pre-dated the now well acknowledged 

security breach at OPM. In my capacity as Assistant Secretary of 

Labor for almost 8 years, from 2001 to 2009, I also had the role 

of the Chief Information Officer (CIO), so I had some knowledge— 

far from an expert, not a technology guru, but I had some knowledge about the sensitivity of protecting data, particularly from outside sources getting in. And I felt that the head of an agency, if 

determining after consultation with the technology experts at his 

or her department, felt the need to shut down access to personal 
13 

websites and email, then that should be a decision that the head 

of that agency should be able to make without wasting time on 

anything, but to get to the core of the matter, which was obviously 

preventing and protecting us from cybersecurity attacks. 

I still believe strongly about that. As a matter of fact—you mentioned the OPM instance—I, too, was notified of my exposure in 

that. 

Senator ERNST. Many of us were. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. About a month after the OPM incident, Acting Director Cobert unilaterally shut down access to web email and 

Gmail without even informing the employees. And I know of no action that the union took in response to that, because I think common sense has caught up with perhaps this deference to needing 

to consult when there is something that could be called sort of an 

emergency or sensitive situation. 

So I do think it is important for agency heads to have that authority to act quickly and to do so without having to consult with 

unions or other third parties. 

Senator ERNST. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Whenever 

there is an active threat out there, I think it is very important that 

those department heads are able to respond to those threats. But 

I appreciate it. Thank you all very much for being here today. I 

truly do appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. I recognize Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I am not going to ask any more questions. I 

would like to note—and thanks for giving me this chance—that 

Congresswoman Norton wanted to be here, expected to be here to 

introduce you, Ms. Becker, Mr. Berk, and Ms. Wingo. She is in a 

markup over in the House of Representatives offering an amendment or amendments at the markup, so that is her day job. That 

is her job. And she wishes she could be here, be in two places at 

once, but she sends her best. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am always struck by how remarkably well qualified folks are 

who come in front of us and by the fact that all of you really in 

the prime of your careers could be making, six, probably seven figures doing something else, and you are willing to step up and serve 

the public and serve this community, which has unique challenges, 

being in the District, and use your enormous talents and your remarkable academic credentials for the betterment of the community. And so I think I start out by just saying thank you, thank 

you, thank you, thank you for everything that you do and for being 

willing to go through this process, which not a lot of what I would 

say State courts judges are required to do, but still willing to serve. 

And so I do not have a lot of questions, but I was struck, Ms. 

Becker, by your comments about the skills that you have learned 

serving the public the way you do right now. I recently had an encounter with somebody who was looking for the court, the D.C. 

court, and they were mistaken and ended up here looking at the 

Supreme Court and looking quite confused. I think this man was 
14 

probably homeless. He had a roller board with him. And I 

thought—I did not ask him why—I was trying to help him find the 

court he was going to, and I did not ask him why he was seeking 

out the court, but I thought when he left—and I offered to get him 

a ride on Uber, and he said, no, he would walk, he still had an 

hour. And I was struck with I hope when he gets there—and I do 

not care what his crime is—that he is treated with respect and that 

he is given an opportunity to really understand why he is there, 

because he seemed quite confused to me. 

And I want to really applaud your answer and say how difficult 

it is. You are not dealing at the Supreme Court level with very sophisticated jurists and lawyers who, are at the peak, the pinnacle. 

You are dealing with people who are homeless, who may have done 

something that, as a result of mental illness or extreme poverty, 

seemed like the only choice at the time. 

So I guess when you look at that—and my question is to you, Ms. 

Wingo. You look at the kind of folks who come into the court—because you have seen them—and you realize that if we are going to 

have a judicial system, it has to be accessible to people at all levels, 

as you have said. 

So what changes would you make or recommend once you get 

into this next step on making the court more accessible, making 

the court function better to better serve all the people of the district? I know there are some real judges out there, so do not worry 

about them. They will never know what you said. [Laughter.] 

Ms. WINGO. Well, I do not know that I can count on that, but 

I think that I would answer on two levels. 

One, I think—and this is not precisely a change, but on an individual level, I think individual judges have an obligation to make 

sure that they are treating every individual with respect, making 

sure that they do understand the process, that they are taking the 

time to explain it, and that they are explaining it in language that 

anybody can understand. 

Senator HEITKAMP. What percentage of people who appear in the 

court appear pro bono—without counsel? 

Ms. WINGO. That depends on what courtroom you are in. So, for 

example, when I was in a small claims courtroom, it was everybody. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Sure. 

Ms. WINGO. Pretty much everybody. In the criminal courtrooms, 

they have a right to counsel, and so the court appoints counsel for 

almost everybody. In the traffic courtroom, there are some cases 

that are immediately diverted where they are trying to seek a resolution that is not heading toward trial and conviction but, for example, doing community service and getting your case dismissed. 

Those folks are not necessarily assigned counsel. There are counsel 

for the courtroom who can assist everybody in that kind of category. So it really depends on what kind of courtroom you are in, 

I think, what the percentage would be. 

Senator HEITKAMP. So I did not mean to interrupt, but how can 

we make the court more accessible, more understandable to everybody who comes there, whether you are in small claims or whether 

you are in, some kind of diversion program? 
15 

Ms. WINGO. So for the second part, once you are out of the individual level, when you look at it from an institutional level, this 

is something that the Superior Court has focused on a lot. And so 

continuing some of the things that they are already doing and expanding them, for example, we have resource centers or self-help 

centers in many divisions—the family court self-help center, there 

is a consumer law resource center, there is a small claims resource 

center. All of those programs could always be expanded because 

there is more that you could do for folks. But they are places where 

people can go when what folks need is more than what a judge can 

do without stepping outside their role as a neutral arbiter. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think that is an excellent answer, and as 

we look at criminal justice reform, whether we are able to do it or 

not, that is going to involves courts at all levels kind of reexamining the kinds of people who are entering the criminal justice system who also—if you ask many people in my State do we do a pretty good job giving people access to the courts on the criminal side, 

yes, because we have Gideon v. Wainwright. But, if they come in 

and they have a spouse who is able to afford a lawyer in a family 

matter, they are really disadvantaged. 

And so I am curious about all of your opinions about mediation, 

whether you think that is a diversion that we should use more, 

about restitution and other kinds of new judicial tools that could, 

in fact, make the court more accessible, reform the court in ways 

that it is not, a judge sitting on a dais and looking down at the 

citizens who are seeking justice. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. I am a supporter of mediation. Over the years that 

I have been practicing—my area is primarily landlord-tenant law, 

and the court has shifted to requiring mediation at some point in 

all landlord-tenant cases. And I have found that to be a very useful 

process because most cases do settle. Probably most cases should 

settle. And mediation is a chance for the parties to reach a settlement that is in their own control. That is sort of the mantra of the 

mediation center, that ‘‘The power is in your hands’’ in a way that 

it is not if the case goes to trial. 

I think that mediation can pose problems if one side is represented and the other is not, because obviously there is an imbalance in information, there is an imbalance in bargaining power. 

And so I think one of the ways that the court can address that is 

to make the mediators aware of that and sensitive to it, and also 

make it easier, as they have done in recent years, for unrepresented individuals going into mediation to connect with counsel on 

some level to advise them about their rights. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. It is a difficult question, because I think that the 

judge has to be—it is a balancing act, if you will. On the one hand, 

you do not want the judge being too active in the litigants’ dispute. 

The judge has to be a referee. The judge has to be calling balls and 

strikes, so to speak. 

On the other hand, for efficiency purposes, you cannot give everyone—there is just not enough time in the day nor is there the need 

for everyone to have a trial. A lot of things can be resolved through 

people of good faith coming together and realizing what the issues 

are and making a decision based on that. 
16 

So I think in my practice I would say 75 percent of the cases 

start with mediation, and it is a good vehicle, but it is not a perfect 

vehicle. I can only tell you that on an individual basis in a courtroom, if I was confirmed, that I would want to set the tone for respect for everybody, not just the litigants but the court clerk and 

the police officers that come in and every individual so that there 

is a tone of respect. And I think once people have that, they are 

more willing to consider options and consider settlements and consider resolutions, whereas if they feel they are in an adversarial 

proceeding or an adversarial room or an adversarial forum. 

I am not yet familiar with the larger policy issues. I have not 

been in the court to that extent. But I know on an individual issue 

or in individual cases you can set the tone in your courtroom for 

a place that is welcoming, if you will, to resolution of cases and not 

the adversarial system. And what I have seen too much in my career—and I am sorry to go—is, lawyers that get angry at each 

other and there is a lot of vitriol that does not accomplish anything. 

Senator HEITKAMP. My apologies. My time is up, so thank you 

so much. 

Senator LANKFORD. Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

nominees for your statements and for appearing here today this 

morning. 

I certainly know that your families and friends are all very proud 

of you, as they should be with your distinguished career and accomplishments. And, Ms. Becker, I am particularly pleased to see 

you as a native Michigander. I know that you will definitely represent the State of Michigan with great distinction should you be 

confirmed. You do already, but should you be confirmed, that track 

record will continue. 

There are certainly a number of qualities that I believe and I 

think most of the folks on this panel believe every judicial nominee 

should have, and that would include a strong legal background, experience handling a variety of cases, as well as a fair approach to 

legal issues. 

So maybe if I could ask each of the judicial candidates to give 

me a little sense of what is your view of the appropriate temperament of a judge, what elements of temperament do you believe are 

essential to fairly considering cases? And take a moment to describe how your experience working with diverse roles has helped 

you develop what you consider to be this appropriate judicial temperament. We will start down here. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Senator. I think that in order to be a 

good judge, a judge has to possess the qualities of patience, of integrity, and a true interest in what I would characterize as the intellectual and human challenges of the law. Sitting as a trial court 

judge, you really see the gamut of human experience coming in 

through the courthouse doors every day. And some of the cases 

present challenging, difficult factual issues. Some of the cases 

present challenging legal issues. And I think a judge really has to 

want to delve into those issues and be excited about trying to fig-
17 

ure out what the answers are. And I believe that I would be suited 

to that role. 

Senator PETERS. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. Thank you, Senator. I think the first quality of a good 

judicial temperament is somebody who listens. And that may seem 

really basic, but I always will tell folks that you learn more from 

listening, and so you really need to listen to your witnesses, you 

need to listen to the litigants. If a defense attorney or an attorney 

comes in and wants their third extension and comes up with some 

excuse, you want to listen to that and really determine whether 

they are telling you the truth or not. So listening is key. 

I think that you have to be decisive. The worst thing that can 

happen to you as a litigant is that the judge does not decide, that 

you are asked to come back in 6 weeks, 8 weeks, or 9 weeks. You 

have to have the courage to be decisive, and I think that that is 

part of the temperament. 

And I guess the last one—and I do not mean to sound trite at 

all, but you need to be fair. And when I talk about fairness, I talk 

about fairness in a procedural way so that I know when I have argued an appeal or argued a motion or argued something, you want 

to know why the judge is going to rule against you. ‘‘Mr. Berk, you 

have not made the fourth element,’’ or something to that effect, so 

that the judge is fair to you and you respect that decision more 

afterwards because you have gotten that opportunity to know what 

you were missing. 

So it is decisiveness, it is fairness, and it is listening, I think, for 

me that would be the three. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

Ms. WINGO. I think that I would echo the comments of Ms. Becker and Mr. Berk to some degree. I definitely agree that fairness is 

the first and foremost quality, and by that, you have to be calm, 

you have to be able to treat everyone in front of you with a dignity 

and respect so that you can hear what they are saying, so that you 

actually get the information from all sides, so that you can make 

an appropriate decision. 

I think you need to add to that a substantive knowledge of the 

law that you are deciding and a willingness to do the work to get 

the answer if you do not already know it. 

I think also, as Mr. Berk said, you need to be decisive because 

as the saying goes, justice delayed in justice denied. And it is not 

enough to come to the correct decision. You need to do it efficiently 

so that you can handle the high volume of cases that our court has. 

And then, finally, I think you really need to be someone who is 

articulate in a way that you can talk to everyone who comes before 

you, whether they have a law school background or no background 

at all, so that everyone who walks in the door walks out feeling 

like they have had an opportunity to be heard, they understand 

what happened, and they know why it happened. 

Senator PETERS. Great. Well, thank you. 

A followup question to Ms. Becker. First off, I want to say I have 

had an opportunity to talk with you prior to this hearing, and I appreciated that opportunity. And I am certainly impressed by your 

background, first and foremost, of course, from the University of 

Michigan, which is a great educational background, but then going 
18 

off to Yale University. You were an individual who was on a fast 

track that could have gone any way with your legal career but 

chose to help those who often do not have a voice, which I commend you for your career. And given that, and given your previous 

work focusing on helping and representing low-income District of 

Columbia residents at Legal Aid Society, you helped clients challenge the termination of housing subsidies, assisted tenant associations in preserving affordable housing, and a variety of other areas 

that you worked on. 

Could you describe the importance of your work and your experience working with low-income populations and how that makes you 

particularly well qualified to serve on the D.C. Superior Court? 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Senator. Let me answer that in two 

ways. 

First, I want to talk a little bit about housing because that has 

been my primary focus. I think that although I have been focusing 

on that area, I think the reality is that housing is really critical 

to every aspect of an individual’s life, and particularly a low-income 

individual’s life. Housing is critical to maintaining family stability, 

which is critical to retaining custody. Housing is critical to allowing 

children to get a good education. Housing is critical to giving citizens returning from incarceration the stability that they need to 

avoid recidivism and become productive members of society. And so 

through my housing work, I have really come to understand all of 

the other factors that impact the litigants who are appearing in Superior Court. 

And then more generally, I think that because I have spent such 

a long time in Superior Court, because I have appeared in so many 

of the courtrooms and had a chance to observe so many of the 

things that happen there, I think that I would be well prepared to 

join the bench there. I am excited by the prospect of doing that, 

and I think that my experience has prepared me to communicate 

with individuals at all levels, with attorneys, with individuals who 

are not represented by counsel, with individuals who know something about the law and individuals who do not, because I have 

had practice in doing all of those things throughout my career. 

Senator PETERS. All right. Thank you. My time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

We blocked off about an hour an a half for this, which means the 

last round of questions I get 35 minutes, and we will go from there. 

[Laughter.] 

I will quick run through a series of questions, but I do have quite 

a few questions, and we will go through several of these. 

Mr. Pizzella, you previously indicated you would bring the taxpayer viewpoint to your responsibility as well. Can you help me understand a little bit about that, what you have done already as you 

think about the taxpayer in your decisions? How does that affect 

you? And how do you use that as a filter? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Two items come to mind. One deals with the subject of union official time and the need, at least I believe, to have 

a lot of transparency in that, current data about its usage, because 

union official time is paid for by the taxpayer. So I have pointed 
19 

that out in a variety of decisions, and I think it will be a recurring 

issue. 

Senator LANKFORD. In your view, how should official time be 

used in the transparency you describe? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Well, No. 1, I think it should be limited to collective bargaining activities. But, No. 2, I think that there should be 

timely information provided to Members of Congress and to the 

public as to how much is being utilized. The most recent information available is from, I believe, fiscal year (FY) 2012, and my 

recollection as a former Assistant Secretary at the Department of 

Labor is that we collected information on official time in the payroll 

system. So it was done every other week. A person who was in official time status, that would be recognized in the payroll system. So 

I do not think it is a rather cumbersome thing to accumulate. But 

since there is no requirement on OPM or any other agency to provide that information to Members of Congress or the public in general, it is only obtained through a persistent Member of Congress 

or a congressional hearing sometimes. So I think that would be 

much more helpful in the area of transparency so we really know 

what is being spent. The last time they released information on 

this, I think it was $159 million, but that is now at least 3-yearold information. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. So tell me about an example when an 

agency action or instruction is non-negotiable, so when some agency or some action that they have taken you would say that is nonnegotiable, that is going to be outside of the relationship and bargaining. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Well, there are certain things that are statutorily 

non-negotiable: wages and benefits of Federal employees, any type 

of agency shop type of recognition. Then there are other things that 

the collective bargaining agreement itself may not specify as negotiable, which then can be subject to debate between the parties, 

which often ends up in arbitration and sometimes comes to the 

FLRA. 

Some things could be rather serious; some things could be rather 

trivial. We have had cases where employees felt aggrieved because 

the temperature in their worksite was 3 degrees below what the 

contract required and it did not get fixed until later in the day. But 

a case like that reached all the way to the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority. So that is an example, I guess. 

Senator LANKFORD. Yes, kind of a tough example on that. 

Let me ask a question that is a process question for us. It is very 

difficult for Members of the Senate or Members of the House to get 

information from agencies about recommendations for statutory 

changes that are needed. You and the folks that are around you 

understand more than anyone else the needed changes in things 

like the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. You 

get it because you experience it and you see the problems. 

The problem is you see the problems but are often not permitted 

to tell us what the problems are. We cannot fix a problem that we 

cannot see when you are dealing with it day to day. How do we 

get information and clarity on those issues so we do not have problems persist because we did not know about it and you are not allowed to tell us? 
20 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Well, I guess I would use two examples. One 

would be this very issue that we discussed earlier regarding 

cybersecurity. Certainly through any dissent or opinion of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, you can glean from that what 

might be wrong and needs corrective action. And I believe I read 

just the other day, I think it might have been the House has moved 

some legislation that deals with this issue of cybersecurity and the 

responsibility in the head of the agency to make the final decision 

rather than have it subject to collective bargaining. So that is one. 

And the other thing that, again, is recently in the news was on 

the issue of recording official time, and once again I thought I just 

read just the other day that your counterparts in the House, at 

least at the committee level, have adopted a proposal to require 

more transparency in that. 

So I guess the best answer is our decisions speak for themselves. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. That is good to note. There is a lot more 

mediation that is happening now, which is a good thing. But that 

also reduces the caseload obviously since you are caught up at that 

point. There are other entities that also deal with relationship 

issues. Are there any recommendations or ideas that you would 

have to be able to combine any functions of what currently happens 

with any other agency? 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Well, I have often commented to my colleagues in 

jest that, if labor peace breaks out, we are no longer necessary. 

Senator LANKFORD. And so Lord come. 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Yes. But I do not know if there is anything in particular—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Not fishing for a particular answer, by the 

way, so—— 

Mr. PIZZELLA. Right. I would say from a generic standpoint that 

the statute that governs the Federal workforce and labor-management disputes and all is about 38 years old now. It has had very 

little in the way of changes or tweaking in that time period, and 

like many pieces of legislation that old, it is probably useful for a 

thorough review. The world has changed. Just in the example of 

cybersecurity, the legislation was passed before we had cell phones 

and the Internet and all that. So it probably could be updated into 

the 21st Century, and I would encourage Congress to maybe consider that. 

Senator LANKFORD. All right. Good word. 

Ms. Becker, let me ask you, you and I have had this conversation 

before about civil versus criminal, that the preponderance of your 

background is civil in nature, and that the criminal side of it is a 

learning curve for you that you can jump into. I have no doubt 

based on your own mental aptitude that you can get up to speed 

on that quickly. 

How does that happen for you as you are facing your earliest 

days of criminal cases that you do not get so overwhelmed with the 

number of cases coming at you, you do not have time to be able 

to study and be well prepared for the issues at hand? 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Senator. I think the best way that I can 

answer that is that I would work as hard as I possibly could on 

my own to understand the governing law and the rules of procedure in the courtroom, and I would seek out guidance and 
21 

mentorship from more senior judges on the Superior Court. I think 

that any person not coming from a criminal background has had 

the same challenge, has had to get up to speed on the law and the 

procedure without sort of taking that learning curve out on the litigants, so to speak. 

And so I would look forward to getting their advice and making 

sure that I was as prepared as I possibly could be walking into the 

courtroom to know the law and to apply it to what is before me. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. I am going to ask this of all three of the 

judicial nominees as well, and we will just kind of walk through 

this. And since, Ms. Wingo, you have given advice to the other two, 

we will start with you and go from there since they will base their 

comments off yours, anyway, so we will go from there. 

The challenge every judge has, regardless of their role, is setting 

aside your own biases, which all of us have our own biases from 

our own background and everything else, and applying the law 

equally and fairly. In Washington, D.C., that gets ramped up to a 

different volume because in front of your bench at any given point, 

you may have any ethnicity, you may have elected officials and 

unelected officials, you may have powerful folks downtown, and you 

may have folks that cannot find downtown. At any given time, you 

have this wide variety of individuals that are in front of you from 

multiple classes and backgrounds. To equally apply the law to all 

individuals is a tremendous challenge for you on a day-to-day basis. 

So my question is not, yes or no, will you do it, because I assume 

you are going to say yes, you will. It is how do you manage that 

personally and how do you manage that from your own background 

of making sure that the person in front of you now versus the person in front of you at 3 o’clock this afternoon, regardless of background, gets an equal application of the law. How do you manage 

that? 

Ms. WINGO. I think the place you start is by treating each case 

individually. You really have to look at each case, listen to the person who is before you, and then respond to that case. You really 

cannot be looking out over your courtroom and seeing who else is 

there. And when you are dealing with people as individuals, I think 

it is a much easier prospect to treat them without bringing any of 

your own experiences. 

And I do think as a judge, and particularly as a trial judge, you 

get used to doing that. There are things that you have to do as a 

trial judge when, for example, you are excluding evidence. You 

know that the evidence is out there. You ignore it because you have 

excluded it. So you really get used to looking and limiting yourself 

very carefully to what is on the record, what is the evidence before 

you, and what is the law. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Berk. 

Mr. BERK. I have talked about my father, but I think I would 

like to bring him up again because he has informed so much of who 

I am. We used to go to lunch together a lot, and when we would 

go to lunch, he knew the guy who parked the car, and he knew the 

busboy, and he knew the server, and he knew the owner of the restaurant, always loved to know the owner of the restaurant. And he 

treated them all the same way. He asked them how they were 

doing. In some ways he treated the guy who parked the car better 
22 

than the restaurant owner. And I guess I just learned at an early 

age that, folks are the same and you treat everybody the same way. 

I am the son of immigrants. I am not very far away from the experience of some of the people that will appear before me in court. 

And so those are sort of core values that I think I would bring to 

the bench and will always sort of be at my heart. 

Senator LANKFORD. How do you fight your own biases on that, 

not to defer to that immigrant—because you have walked that experience—or defer to that individual that you so closely relate to? 

Because, again, that is our natural bias. If a redhead comes in 

front of me, they are always treated—— [Laughter.] 

But how do you process that? 

Mr. BERK. I think, Senator, you acknowledge it. I think you acknowledge it to yourself, and then, to come back to it, I mean, we 

are governed by the rule of law, and we can always fall back on 

that. And in my mind, yes, sure, an immigrant, their story has to 

make sense. It has to have the ring of truth to it. 

So while in some instances it could be difficult, I do think that 

when you are governed by the rule of law and you are governed 

by your good judgment, you can get over those kinds of things? 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Becker. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Senator. I think the way to ensure that 

people are treated equally primarily is to apply the law to the facts 

presented in each individual case, because although the facts are 

different in each case, the law is not. And so the best way to ensure 

that people with similar facts are given similar treatment is to 

apply the law to those facts. 

I think as attorneys one of the things we are best at is making 

analogies and making distinctions. Every time we argue in court, 

we are trying to persuade the judge that our case is like this other 

case in relevant ways or is not like this other case in relevant 

ways. And I think that is just as important a skill for a judge, if 

I am making a decision that is different from one I made in another case with similar facts, I have to be able to justify, first to 

myself and then to the litigants in front of me, the reasoning for 

that different judgment and why I am ruling differently in this 

case than the one that came before. And I think that that has to 

be sort of a constant thread running through the work that you do 

as a judge. 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Berk, let me ask a question of you as 

well on this. What do you see are the largest or most significant 

criminal issues currently in D.C.? And as a judge, what can you do 

to be able to help in that area? I know there are lots of civil issues 

and everything else, but just focusing on the criminal issues, some 

of the most significant criminal issues we face in D.C., and as a 

judge, what is your best use of being able to help in that area? 

Mr. BERK. Well, I think the best thing you can do is move cases 

and not delay. There unfortunately are too many crimes committed, 

and if all these cases go to trial, they back up the system. 

I know Judge Sullivan is here, and I remember back in the day 

when Judge Sullivan was on the Superior Court—that was before 

he was on the Federal bench—and I know he moved his cases. And 

I think that is the best you can do as an individual judge. 
23 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Becker, same question for that. Crime 

within the D.C. area, what you can do as a judge, the best thing 

to be able to help? 

Ms. BECKER. So I will echo some of what Mr. Berk said. I think 

that one of the greatest challenges facing the Criminal Division is 

just that there is a high volume of cases moving through the system because, unfortunately, there is a lot of crime of various kinds 

here in the District of Columbia. And so I think the greatest challenge for a judge in that situation is not only moving the cases 

through, but while doing so making sure that he or she is trying 

to strike the right balance between a system that is fair to defendants but also accounts for the experiences of victims and, of course, 

the predominant need for community safety, because that is overall 

what is going to benefit all the residents of the District. 

Senator LANKFORD. Ms. Wingo, you have a unique perspective on 

this, already serving as a magistrate judge. What do you see as one 

of the most significant crime issues we are currently facing in D.C.? 

And as a judge, what is the best thing you can do to be able to help 

in that role? 

Ms. WINGO. Well, I do think that, as a judge, your role is to handle the cases that come before you, and so that is really what you 

do in order to address the criminal issues. 

I also think that as a judge, we have a fair number of resources, 

and one of the things that I think is quite clear leads to criminal 

activity is drug use. And utilizing those resources in order to help 

people address their problems so that they are not going to 

recidivate is one of the things that you can do as a judge. 

Senator LANKFORD. Any other tools for recidivism that you can 

use or express as a judge or ideas of things that you would like to 

bring at some point to say that this is an issue for this individual, 

this is the third time I have seen him, things that you can do from 

the bench? 

Ms. WINGO. Well, that is one of the things that you do. When you 

are trying to sentence someone, you are trying to come up with a 

sentence that will make it the least likely that they will appear before you again. And so it depends a little bit on what the kind of 

crime is. For example, in a traffic court, you are going to order traffic alcohol programs and victim impact panels so people understand 

the impact of what they did, even if they did not cause any harm 

this time, that they really could have killed somebody. 

When you structure your probations, that is what you try to do. 

Senator LANKFORD. I appreciate all of your answers and the conversation today. The only comment that I would make for anyone’s 

responses is for you, Mr. Berk, on a previous question that was 

spoken to you when you mentioned when that attorney comes to 

you with the third extension and to treat him fairly, I would say 

do not. If it is a third extension—— [Laughter.] 

They just need to get their work done and bring it to you. 

Other than that, I appreciate very much what you all have said 

today and what you bring to it and the experience. I know this is 

a difficult process to go through. I am fully aware. You all are 

much more aware of the length of the process. Mr. Pizzella, you 

have been through this several times now, so I appreciate what 
24 

this means to you and your families and such. So, with that, I 

would like to be able to move things along. Give me just a moment. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. Becker, Mr. Berk, Ms. Wingo, and Mr. Pizzella have filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaires, answered 

prehearing questions submitted by the Committee, and have had financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made a part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which is on file 

and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow, 

March 3, 2016, for the submission of statements and questions for 

the record. 

With that, unless there are any other comments, this hearing is 

adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(25) 

A P P E N D I X 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 

Æ