[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 20 (Thursday, February 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1481-S1482]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     NOMINATION OF VALERIE L. BAKER

  Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support Judge Valerie Baker, a 
distinguished nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central 
District of California.
  The Central District of California, based in Los Angeles, is the 
largest and busiest Federal judicial district in the Nation. Judge 
Baker would be a welcome addition to this important court.
  Judge Baker has been a trial court judge on the Los Angeles County 
Superior Court for nearly 20 years and previously served on Los Angeles 
Municipal Court.
  In 1994, she was awarded the Alfred J. McCourtney Trial Judge of the 
Year Award from the Consumer Lawyers of Los Angeles.
  Judge Baker is also a seasoned litigator, with Federal experience in 
criminal and civil cases. With the law firm of Lillick, McHose & 
Charles she specialized in Federal business litigation and antitrust 
law. As an assistant U.S. attorney, Judge Baker prosecuted bank 
robberies, major drug violations, and fraudulent enterprises.
  At the University of California at Santa Barbara, she earned a 
bachelor of arts degree and a master's degree in English, and she 
received a law degree from UCLA.
  Off the bench, Judge Baker has devoted herself to charities helping 
the Los Angeles community.
  As a board member of the UCLA Law School Alumni Association, she 
chaired a committee to recruit qualified minority students. She also 
served on the board of a non-profit shelter for homeless teenagers and 
sat on the board of directors of the Braille Institute of Los Angeles.
  The American Bar Association has given Judge Baker a unanimous ``well 
qualified'' rating, the Association's highest mark.
  I am proud of the bipartisan process for selecting Federal district 
court nominees that we have developed in California. Under this system, 
a committee of lawyers, including Democrats and Republicans, recommends 
qualified applicants to the President.
  Judge Baker came through this committee, which gives me confidence 
that she comes to the bench without an ideological agenda and is 
prepared to serve all the people of California.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate continues to make 
significant progress in its consideration of judicial nominations. The 
Senate will consider and, I believe, confirm the nominations of 
Lawrence Joseph O'Neill for the Eastern District of California, Valerie 
L. Baker for Central District of California, and Gregory Kent Frizzell 
for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
  When they are confirmed, the Senate will have granted its consent to 
263 of President Bush's nominations for lifetime appointments to our 
Federal courts. Moreover, with these three confirmations today, we will 
have confirmed more of President Bush's nominations in the 18 months I 
have served as Judiciary Committee chairman with a Democratic majority 
in the Senate than in the more than 2 years when Senator Hatch chaired 
the committee with a Republican Senate majority or during the last 
Congress with a Republican Senate majority. This is the 105th 
confirmation during my time as Judiciary chairman.
  I know some on the other side of the aisle have tried to raise a 
scare since I, again, became chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They 
rant as if the sky is falling and we would not proceed on any judicial 
nominations. We have proceeded promptly and efficiently. Last Thursday, 
the Judiciary Committee held its first business meeting of the year. We 
might have met earlier but for the delay in organizing the Senate from 
January 4, when this session first began, until the Republican caucus 
finally agreed to the resolutions assigning Members to Senate 
committees on January 12.
  The three nominations we consider today were among the five 
nominations for lifetime appointments Federal judges that I included on 
the agenda at our first meeting. Like the two judges confirmed on 
Tuesday, Judge O'Neill's nomination is for a vacancy that has been 
designated a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the 
U.S. Courts. All five were among those returned to the President 
without Senate action at the end of last year when Republican Senators 
objected to proceeding with certain nominees in September and December 
last year.
  Before proceeding, I inquired of each member of the committee whether 
a hearing was requested on these nominations this year. I, again, thank 
all, members of the Judiciary Committee for working with me to expedite 
consideration of these nominations this year. In particular, I extend 
thanks to our new members, the Senators from Maryland and Rhode Island.
  These nominations were not even sent to the Senate until January 9. 
They were considered by the committee in a little over 2 weeks and are 
being approved by the Senate in a little over 3 weeks from their 
nomination.
  I have worked cooperatively with Members from both sides of the aisle 
on our committee and in the Senate to move quickly to consider and 
report judicial nominations so that we can fill vacancies and improve 
the administration of justice in our Nation's Federal courts. I 
appreciate the interests of Senator Chambliss and Senator Isaakson in 
the confirmation of Judge Wood, the first judge confirmed this year. 
Likewise, I was pleased to be able to respond to the needs of Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Coburn by expediting consideration of Judge 
Frizzell. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer of California for 
their efforts on some of these nominations and for working to fill the 
vacancies in California.
  I have long urged the President to fill vacancies with consensus 
nominees. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts list 57 judicial 
vacancies, 28 of them have been deemed to be judicial emergencies. So 
far this Congress, the President has yet to send us nominees for 17 of 
those judicial emergency vacancies.
  I have also scheduled a confirmation hearing for next week for 
additional judicial nominees and another business meeting at which the 
committee may consider still more judicial nominations. When a 
Republican chaired the committee in 1999 and there was a Democratic 
President, the first hearing on a judicial nominee was not held until 
June 16. We intend to hold a hearing on February 6.
  I had initially thought that we would include the nomination of 
Norman Randy Smith of Idaho to the Ninth Circuit at that hearing next 
week. However, with the cooperation of the Senators from California and 
the members of the Judiciary Committee, I now hope to be able to avoid 
another hearing on the Smith nomination.
  I was pleased when the White House changed course and nominated Randy 
Smith for the Idaho seat on the Ninth Circuit. I had urged President 
Bush to take this action last year when he insisted on resubmitting the 
Smith nomination for a California seat on the Ninth Circuit. I thank 
the President for finally doing the right thing. I will urge the Senate 
to confirm his nomination of Randy Smith to the vacant seat on the 
Ninth Circuit from Idaho. At long last Senator Craig and Senator Crapo 
will then have a judge on that important court from their home State.
  Each of the nominees we consider today has the support of home State 
Senators.
  Lawrence Joseph O'Neill is nominated to the U.S. District Court for 
the Eastern District of California, another seat deemed to be a 
judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. He 
is a well-qualified nominee who has over 15 years of experience on the 
bench, seven of them as a magistrate judge on the district court to 
which he is now nominated. Before becoming a magistrate judge, Judge 
O'Neill spent 9 years as a Fresno County superior court judge and, 
before that, a decade in private practice. Judge O'Neill will bring a 
valuable perspective to the Federal bench, having served as a police 
officer for 5 years in

[[Page S1482]]

the city of San Leandro, CA. He graduated from law school at the 
University of California, Hastings and then clerked for Judge Robert F. 
Kane on the California Court of Appeals.
  Valerie L. Baker, who is nominated to the U.S. District Court for the 
Central District of California, already has over 20 years of experience 
on the bench. As a Los Angeles County municipal and then superior court 
judge, she has handled thousands of cases and has been the recipient of 
the Alfred J. McCourtney Trial Judge of the Year Award by Consumer 
Lawyers of Los Angeles. After graduating from UCLA Law School, Judge 
Baker served as an assistant U.S. attorney and as a commercial 
litigator in private practice. Judge Baker was rated unanimously well 
qualified by the American Bar Association and has the support of both 
her home State Democratic Senators.
  As a courtesy to Senator Inhofe, I included the nomination of Gregory 
Kent Frizzell on the agenda for Judiciary Committee's first executive 
business meeting last week. I was glad to see Senator Inhofe say that 
he was ``pleased with the committee action'' and that Judge Frizell was 
``fast-tracked through.'' Judge Frizzell is nominated to the U.S. 
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. He has a decade 
of experience on the bench as an Oklahoma district judge in Tulsa 
County. In his 23 years as a lawyer, Judge Frizzell has served as 
general counsel to the Oklahoma Tax Commission and tried more than 25 
cases in private practice as a sole practitioner and an attorney at 
Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C., representing community colleges, 
insurance companies, and other businesses. After graduating from the 
University of Tulsa and the University of Michigan Law School, Judge 
Frizzell served as a law clerk to Judge Thomas R. Brett on the court to 
which he has now been nominated.
  I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmations 
today. We continue to make progress towards filling longstanding 
judicial vacancies. I intend to do what I can to ensure that the 
Federal judiciary remains independent and able to provide justice to 
all Americans.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be 
yielded back and the vote begin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.