Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to discuss the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. Over the past several months, we have all watched with alarm as President Mugabe has placed his desire to remain in power above the best interests of his own people. In the process, Mr. Mugabe's government has destroyed the rule of law, contributed to food shortages, committed violations of human rights, and wrecked the economy--causing unemployment to rise to more than 60 percent. The issue has received most of the attention is land reform. There is no question that land reform is badly needed to ensure long-term prosperity in Zimbabwe. As late as 1999, the process appeared to be moving in the right direction: Zimbabwe had presented a detailed plan for the inception phase of a land reform effort, the World Bank had made a $5 million pledge to assist with the resettlement of poor farmers, and several bilateral donors, including the United States, made pledges of assistance. However, in an attempt to deflect attention from a failing economy, a misguided military intervention in the Congo, widespread government corruption, and a host of other domestic problems, President Mugabe decided to support the sudden occupation of large farms. In the wake of this ill-conceived policy, several farmers have been killed, the independence of the judicial system has been seriously undermined, and agricultural production has been sharply reduced, contributing to widespread food shortages throughout the country. As the land seizure crisis continues, other forms of harassment and political violence in Zimbabwe--carried out primarily by members of the ZANU-PF party against members of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), journalists, and other critics of the government--have steadily escalated. A number of recent events clearly indicate that the situation is a risk of spiraling out of control: the MDC office in Bulawayo was invaded and burnt down with a petrol bomb, as the police stood by and watched; there are reports that MDC members have been illegally taken into custody and tortured; the government announced the humanitarian organizations will not be permitted to distribute food aid in rural areas where it is acutely needed; and after two journalists were arrested, the minister of information compared the international media to terrorists and began notifying foreign journalists that they would not be allowed to work in the country for the foreseeable future. There are also serious concerns about the upcoming Presidential election scheduled for early next year. As a Gallup poll shows President Mugabe running behind MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangirai, many outside observers believe that Mr. Mugabe and ZANU-PF will stop at nothing to remain in power, and are engaged in activities to undermine the democratic process and illegally alter the outcome of the election. In addition to the campaign of harassment and violence against MDC supporters, the government has prevented non-governmental organizations from carrying out voter education campaigns and has refused to allow observers from international organizations, including the European Union, to monitor the elections. Moreover, the government is pushing through electoral reforms that will effectively withhold absentee ballots from Zimbabweans living abroad, with the exception of diplomats and soldiers, and require voters to present proof of residency. These are measures that could eliminate thousands from the voter rolls. Because of the serious situation in Zimbabwe, I have joined with Senator Feingold and sponsored a provision which was included in FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Conference Report that requires U.S. executive directors to international financial institutions to vote against loans, except those for basic human needs or democracy- building purposes, to the Government of Zimbabwe, unless the Secretary of State determines and reports that the rule of law has been restored. I would also like to point out that earlier this session the House and Senate passed S. 494, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001, and I look forward to President Bush signing it into law, as soon as possible. S. 494 contains several provisions similar to section 560 in the Foreign Operations Conference Report, although section 560 does not provide waiver authority. Mr. President, I continue to strongly support the Administration's request for assistance to Zimbabwe for health care programs, strengthening civil society that is not affiliated with the ruling party, peace corps activities, and humanitarian purposes. However, the request for funds to restart the International Military Education and Training is premature, and would send the wrong message at this critical juncture.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am also very concerned that we develop policies to more adequately protect our maritime vulnerabilities and protect the public from the threats emerging as a result of maritime trade. I would be happy to work with Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain next year to evaluate whether any gaps in our criminal laws to protect our maritime safety and seaport security exist and the appropriate steps we should take to close those gaps. Additionally, I have expressed to Chairman Hollings my concerns that we properly limit access to and use of sensitive law enforcement information relating to background checks which are provided for in this bill. Chairman Hollings has assured me that the bill sets strict and appropriate limits as to both when such access will be required and how the information will be used once obtained. I would like to ask Chairman Hollings if he could explain those provisions?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this resolution to grant honorary citizenship to the Marquis de Lafayette. Aside from being a hero of the American Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette is known for the grand tour he took of the new Republic in the 1820's. During his visit to Vermont in 1825, a town was renamed as Fayetteville until it was changed again to Newfane in 1882. He also laid the cornerstone of the Old Mill, a historic building on the University of Vermont's campus. The school now honors his memory with a statue on campus. It is not inappropriate, at a time when we are engaged in a struggle against international terrorism, we recall that even in our infancy, this country has always had friends and allies from other parts of the world. After two hundred years, the world has gotten smaller and our international allies and coalition partners are essential to our long term success in the difficult times ahead. We should never forget this nation's friends.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Earlier this year, I voted in support of S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, with the belief that we were taking the first step toward enacting quality education reform in our nation's schools. My support for this legislation was to be contingent upon taking an essential second step providing adequate financial resources for carrying out these reforms. I will repeat now what I said then: unless we commit ourselves to providing the resources necessary for States to carry out the reforms outlined in the bill, we will be doing serious harm to our children. I am afraid that in passing this bill, we are headed down that very path. First, I want to express my strong disappointment that an amendment adopted during the Senate's consideration of this bill, authored by Senator Hatch and myself, was dropped in conference. This amendment would have re-authorized Department of Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs in each of the 50 States. In 1997, I was proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation authorizing grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation. Our bipartisan amendment to this education bill would have authorized $60 million in Department of Justice grants for each of the next five years, enabling the establishment of 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the nation. These new grants would have brought the total number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000, serving 6,000,000 young people by January 1, 2007. In my home state of Vermont, these federal grants have helped establish six Boys and Girls Clubs in Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. Together, Vermont's Boys and Girls Clubs have received more than $1 million in Department of Justice grants since 1998. I know what a great impact these after school opportunities have had in these communities, and it is clear to me that more resources must be invested in order to help our kids lead healthy lives and avoid the temptations of drug use. I am disappointed that some members of the conference committee did not want to ensure future funding for these successful programs. Some of the most publicized and often-discussed provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act are the expanded requirements for measuring student performance through annual testing of students in grades three through eight in math and reading. This conference report requires states to develop and administer this annual testing. While accompanying appropriations will provide the resources necessary to pay for a portion of the costs of developing and administering the tests, the funds are far less than what will be necessary, leaving Vermont and other states with large financial gaps to fill. At a time when our economy is slowing and states are facing difficult budget choices, the Federal Government should not be placing burdensome, unfunded mandates on local and state officials, especially when there are education funding commitments the Federal Government is still yet to meet. With this legislation, Congress had before it the opportunity to reverse its decades-long transgression in the area of special education funding. The conferees rejected a provision adopted during the Senate's consideration of the education bill that would have ensured that the Federal Government finally lived up to its commitment to our children with special needs and the communities in which they live. I am deeply troubled by this. When Congress first passed the Individuals with Disabilities Act, IDEA, the States were required to comply with the special education provisions, and in exchange, the Federal government would contribute up to 40 percent of the costs. Instead, the Federal contribution is generally only 12 to 15 percent, far from the promised 40 percent. The provision included in the Senate-passed bill would have required the government to contribute the 40 percent by changing the Federal contribution from discretionary spending to mandatory. In Vermont, countless communities struggle each year to pass their local school budgets, hampered by the high costs of providing special education. The actions of the conferees fail to provide the relief States are owed, and have instead placed additional mandates that State and local education officials must find a way to address. In addition to the inadequate resources provided for special education, and for implementation of the assessment provisions, I am concerned about the extensive Federal control exerted in this bill over the evaluation of whether a school is failing. I am particularly concerned about the definition of what constitutes a failing school, especially because this is a determination that could ultimately lead to the elimination of Federal funds for that school. Finally, I find troubling the degree to which this legislation increases Federal control over teacher qualification and greatly increases administrative paperwork for the States. Current statistics leave no doubt that some schools in our country are failing--education reform is necessary in some parts of our country. One of the fundamental problems with this legislation, however, is that in recognizing the areas in our education system that are failing and in need of assistance, it fails to recognize the successful things happening in education in some States. My state of Vermont leads the Nation with its innovative and effective policies for assessing student performance and providing necessary technical assistance to struggling schools. This new Federal legislation will require that Vermont abandon its home-grown successful tools and implement--at a high cost--new tools selected by Federal lawmakers that appear to be aimed at failing schools in our Nation's urban areas. This legislation will require schools to make major changes in a short period of time without the resources necessary to implement these changes. With difficult financial times ahead for many States, including Vermont, this Federal law will force State legislatures to make very difficult budget choices in order to comply with these new Federal mandates. I commend the bipartisan effort that has gone into crafting this legislation. I know that my colleagues all want to ensure that our Nation's children have access to the quality education they deserve. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, the legislation that has been pieced together does more harm than good for school children in Vermont. While there are some positive reforms included in the final measure, there is far more that will hurt Vermont's local educational efforts and cost the State dearly in financial resources. As the former chairman of the Education Committee for many years, and as a leader in education policy, my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, understands better than most the impact that this bill will have on our home State. During this debate, Senator Jeffords' continued perseverance on the issue of increased Federal special education funding has been outstanding, and I commend his tireless advocacy on behalf of our Nation's schoolchildren. I regret I am not able to support this legislation today. And I regret that we will likely find ourselves on the Senate floor sometime soon, once again discussing education reform efforts. Next time, though, I believe we will be here to discuss how to fix the harm we have done in passing the legislation before us today.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be able to proceed for about 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that one or more Republican Senators are holding up final passage of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, H.R. 2215. This bipartisan bill is supported by the Bush Administration and cosponsored by Senator Hatch, the ranking Republican Member of the Judiciary Committee. It was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee back on October 30. This bill, with a bipartisan amendment authored by Senator Hatch and myself, has cleared the Democratic cloakroom for final passage but someone on the other side of the aisle has placed a secret hold on it. I would urge my Republican friends to permit the Senate to take up and pass this critical legislation. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, provides permanent enabling authorities which will allow the Department of Justice to efficiently carry out its mission. At a time when the Department of Justice is conducting the most sweeping investigation into terrorist conspiracies in our Nation's history, the Senate should pass this legislation. Indeed, Title II our bipartisan bill provides the Department of Justice with additional law enforcement tools in the war against terrorism. Section 201 permits the FBI to enter into cooperative projects with foreign countries to improve law enforcement or intelligence operations, and Section 210 provides special ``danger pay'' allowances for FBI agents in hazardous duty locations outside the United States. In addition, the bill as passed by the Committee, contains language offered by Senator Feinstein to authorize a number of new judgeships. Title III of this bipartisan legislation authorizes eight new permanent judgeships as follows: five judgeships in the Southern District of California; two judgeships in the Western District of Texas; and one judgeship in the Western District of North Carolina. Section 312 would also convert two temporary judgeships in Illinois into permanent judgeships, create one new temporary judgeship in the Western District of North Carolina, and extend the temporary judgeship in the Northern District of Ohio for five years. I strongly support Senator Feinstein's amendment, as do many of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis, including Senator DeWine, Senator Durbin, Senator Edwards, and others. I believe that the need for these new judgeships is acute. Finally, the bill creates a separate Violence Against Women Office to combat domestic violence. This section of the bill was crafted by Senator Biden and Senator Specter--another bipartisan partnership in this legislation. There is strong bipartisan support in the House and Senate to create a separate Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. Senator Hatch and I have also worked together to craft a bipartisan floor amendment which compiles a comprehensive authorization of expired and new Department of Justice grants programs and improvements to criminal law and procedures. For example, our bipartisan floor amendment authorizes Department of Justice grants to establish 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs across the country before January 1, 2007. This bipartisan amendment authorizes Department of Justice grants for each of the next 5 years to establish 1,200 additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. In fact, this will bring the number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000. That means they will serve approximately 6 million young people by January 1, 2007. In 1997, I was very proud to join with Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation to authorize grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. We increased the Department of Justice grant funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs from $20 million in 1998 to $60 million in 2001. That is one reason why we have now 2,591 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50 States and 3.3 million children are being served. It is quite a success story. But the authorization for these Department of Justice grants to Boys and Girls Clubs across the country has expired. This bipartisan legislation will renew and expand these grants. Parents, educators, law enforcement officers, and others know we need safe havens where young people can learn and grow up free from the influence of the drugs and gangs and crime. That is why the Boys and Girls Clubs are so important to our Nation's children. Our bipartisan amendment also includes the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001. I am pleased that we have included in this package the version of S. 304 that the Judiciary Committee passed unanimously on November 29. This legislation ushers in a new, bipartisan approach to our efforts to reduce drug abuse in the United States. It was introduced by Senator Hatch and I in February. Senator Hatch held an excellent hearing on the bill in March, the Judiciary Committee has approved it, and the full Senate should follow the committee's lead. This is a bill that is embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike, as well as law enforcement officers and drug treatment providers. This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to reducing drug abuse in America. I hope that the innovative programs established by this legislation will assist all of our States in their efforts to address the drug problems that most affect our communities. Our bipartisan amendment also includes provisions to protect witnesses who provide information on criminal activity to law enforcement officials by increasing maximum sentences and other improvements to the criminal code. And our bipartisan legislation contains amendments, authored by Senator Sessions, that modify the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000 to enhance participation by local crime labs and to allow for DNA backlog elimination. I was proud to cosponsor the Coverdell grants bill last year and support it to help bring the necessary forensic technology to all states to improve their criminal justice systems. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act should result in more effective, as well as efficient, Department of Justice for the American people. But it must pass the Senate soon and be reconciled with the House-passed bill in a conference. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to lift the secret hold on this bipartisan legislation to support the Department of Justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, the Committee on the Judiciary has examined the administration's proposal to use military tribunals to try suspected terrorists. I think our work has been very helpful and productive. We used the constitutional oversight powers of the Senate to hold a series of hearings on a number of recent developments. Assistant Attorneys General asked to testify and we accommodated them. The Attorney General responded to a bipartisan request and we accommodated him with respect to the date and timing of his participation. We had a dialog on the question of military tribunals. We heard from other witnesses at our earlier hearings and through the course of the last few weeks informally from literally thousands of people. We did this because it appeared to many of us that we had sort of a unilateral edict on the part of the administration regarding military tribunals. We were hearing, from the left to the right, concern that it was so unilateral that it might not stand constitutional muster. So in seeking as many voices on this as possible, we heard from some who endorsed wholeheartedly the use of military tribunals, others who said we should only use our court system--the tried and tested method of the court system, and still others who said--and I find myself in this category--sometimes military tribunals can be appropriate provided they are duly authorized and provided there are reasonable limits and proper safeguards for them. I will put in the Record a copy of a letter from a large number of lawyers and law professors on this issue, and also a summary of some of the things we found in our committee hearings. I also include a proposal. I put this in the Record because I know Senators have been considering proposals for a military tribunal. Several Members of both parties have come forward with very constructive suggestions. I want to make sure if we are going to use military tribunals, we bring the procedure into compliance with international law, but with treaty obligations we have elsewhere. I want to make sure we set out very clearly the question of what our limits are, what the U.S. says about military tribunals. We all know our various Presidents over the years have had to call other countries and say: You are holding an American. You can't put that American before a secret military tribunal. There have to be safeguards and we have to know what is going on. Certainly, you must carry out your own laws, but let's do it in the open and make sure they have a chance to speak, that they know what the evidence is against them, and that they have a chance for appeal. A military tribunal is not a court-martial. Our courts-martial in the United States follow very specific procedures--in fact, some of the best in the world. If it is simply a question of these being, in effect, a court-martial, I don't think there would be any problem. But what is a military tribunal? Senators have asked: Does it mean that a bare majority, or even less, could vote for the death penalty? What is the standard of proof? Is it mere suspicion, or is it preponderance of the evidence, or is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Does the person accused have any chance to give any kind of a defense? These are all issues that should be laid out. If we are going to use military tribunals, let's make sure we are putting forth the best face of America. We have so much for which to be proud. We have a great deal to be proud of in our civil courts and in our military courts. At a time when we are asking nations around the world to join us in our battle against these despicable acts of terror--the acts we saw on September 11 in New York, the Pentagon, and in a lonely field in Pennsylvania--as we properly and appropriately defend ourselves and seek to eradicate the source of this terror, let's make sure, as we line up countries around the world to join us in that battle, that we keep those countries as our allies for further battles. Even after bin Laden is gone--and eventually he will be--there will be other terrorists--if not now, in later years. We want to make sure that countries join with us in the battle against terrorism, respecting the fact that we uphold our Constitution and our highest ideals as Americans.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Robert Stiller, Founder and Chief of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, who has been awarded the ``Entrepreneur of the Year Award'' by Forbes Magazine. Before establishing success on the national level, Bob owned several retail coffee stores in Vermont and Maine. Unable to afford advertising, he gave away free samples at wine and food festivals and to organizations like the Cub Scouts and Ronald McDonald House. Always in search of new customers, Bob began selling his coffee to high-end restaurants and to gas stations with a goal of serving the same high- quality of coffee at both. That strategy and innovation contributed to his company's growing success. Stiller's success stems from his willingness to take risks within the business world and his knowledge of modern technological advantages. By investing in innovative packaging tools that extended the shelf-life of their coffee, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters has made significant breakthroughs in modern brewing. They pioneered efforts to do what few coffee vendors have been able to master: keeping convenience store coffee fresh. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters ranks 16th on the ``Forbes 200 Best Small Companies'' list, and sales have continued to grow an average of 24 percent over the last five years. New roasters they recently purchased will allow them to package and sell over 40 million pounds of coffee a year, available at convenience stores, gas stations, supermarkets, offices, and restaurants nationwide. And their stock has more than doubled in the past 12 months, outperforming competitors like Starbucks, and Peet's Coffee & Tea. Again, I congratulate Bob Stiller and all his employees at Green Mountain Coffee Roasters for receipt of the Forbes award. I ask that the Forbes Magazine article, ``Entrepreneur Of The Year: Java Man,'' and a Rutland Daily Herald article, ``Coffee Company, Founder Grab The Spotlight,'' be made a part of the Record. The material follows: [From Forbes Magazine, Oct. 29, 2001] Entrepreneur of the Year: Java Man (By Luisa Kroll) Bob Stiller's long-shot bets have turned Green Mountain Coffee Roasters into one of the smartest small companies in America. Don't let his look of blissful relaxation fool you. Robert Stiller's head is constantly boiling with new ideas, many of them at odds with those of almost everyone around him. Some of the ideas lose money. Every now and then one makes a bundle. Stiller's first big hit was selling rolling paper on the drug-sodden campus of Columbia University in the early 1970s. His brand, E-Z Wider (a little jab at the cult film), had double the width of competing brands. The paper wouldn't feed into the machine properly, causing tearing. It was scientifically processed; Stiller discovered that storing a bobbin of paper for three weeks in a humidified room prevented the raw material from ripping. ``People expected to see potheads, but we were more efficient at paper conversion than any manufacturer at the time,'' he recalls. E-Z stoked its sales to $11 million before Stiller and a partner sold out in 1980, each pocketing $3.1 million. Twenty years later he still has a knack for experimentation--in the humble business of selling coffee beans. Founder and chief executive of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (nasdaq: GMCR--news--people), 58-year-old Stiller is constantly trying out new technologies, backing other entrepreneurs with untested ideas and taking risks with suppliers that, on the face of it, appear slightly crazy. ``Bob has that sense of not what is, but what could be,'' says Nick G. Lazaris, chief executive of Keurig, which makes coffee-brewing machines and is a partner of Green Mountain. The road less traveled is strewn with riches. Green Mountain ranks 16th on the Forbes 200 Best Small Companies ranking, its second year on the list. Sales have grown an average 24% over the last five years to $84 million for the year ended Sept. 30, 2000; earnings per share have been growing at 43%. In the quarter ended July 7, net income rose 67%. Its stock has more than doubled in the past 12 months, outperforming those of both Starbucks and a closer rival, Peet's Coffee & Tea. Stiller's 48.5% stake is worth $89 million. Green Mountain has put down deep roots near its headquarters in bucolic Waterbury, Vt. Three of every 10 pounds of roasted beans are sold in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. But this is a national company, deriving 95% of its revenue from 6,700 wholesale customers that include convenience stores, gas stations, supermarkets, offices and restaurants. Lesson: Don't forsake marketing. if you cant afford it, try giving away your product. A born tinkerer, Stiller spent weekends and holidays during his youth toiling at Stillman Manufacturing, his dad's Bronx, N.Y. company that made one of the first tubular heating coils for electric stoves. While still in high school, Stiller designed one machine that handled milling, cleaning and threading of a heating element. College was a chore; he couldn't maintain a C average--or what the college called a proper attitude--to remain at Syracuse University and ended up with a degree in business from Parsons College in Fairfield, Iowa in 1967. He landed at Columbia as a data- processing manager. After cashing out of the rolling paper business, Stiller found himself at his ski condo in Sugarbush, Vt. wondering what to do next. One night, as he enjoyed a rare cup of coffee at a restaurant, he woke up and smelled the opportunity. A couple of days later he visited the small roaster in Waitsfield, Vt., where the restaurant bought its beans. For the next few months he roasted his own beans, using a hot-air popcorn popper at one point, a cookie sheet at another, brewing batches of coffee for friends. Stiller ended up buying the Waitsfield store with a partner and giving the store owner an equal one-third stake in Green Mountain. Within two years he became the sole proprietor, buying out both partners for $100,000. The business seemed doomed from the start. Holed up in an office over a movie theater, Stiller lent the company $1 million, but still had to pay salaries with credit cards. His $30,000 line of credit was snatched from him after he went to the main branch of the bank in search of more money. What loan officer dared believe in this venture? This was a decade before Starbucks reached the East Coast, and a cup of joe was just something to wash down the morning eggs and toast. Stiller added retail stores in Vermont and Maine, and insisted on roasting only arabica beans, grown at higher altitudes and pricier than the robusta variety. Unable to afford advertising, he gave away samples at wine and food festivals and to organizations like the Cub Scouts and Ronald McDonald House. The red ink flowed, $1.4 million cumulatively from 1981 to 1985. Always on the prowl for new customers, Stiller began selling to high-end restaurants and specialty stores. He bought a personal computer and hired a programmer to write software that traced customers' orders, deliveries and payments. Ever since, he has invested heavily in technology, becoming one of the first customers of Praxis, which developed a program to monitor and adjust heat levels in the roasters appropriate to each bag of beans. ``Some say there is an art to great coffee,'' says Stiller. ``I don't care how artistic you are, there are too many factors in play. You need the technology.'' Which is why the fellow with the tube-bending machine and the rolling-paper process has installed $2.5 million worth of software from PeopleSoft to track distribution, manufacturing, sales and personnel. At the time this software project got under way Green Mountain had only $33 million in sales and was PeopleSoft's smallest customer for the product. ``Green Mountain,'' says Michael Frandsen, PeopleSoft's general manager of supply chain management, ``is one of the most aggressive small companies I've come across.'' As when Stiller ignored the grumbling of some board members over selling his premium coffee to grungy gas stations. He thought it was a good way to spread the brand; the trick was to make sure the coffee at ExxonMobil was brewed as carefully as it was at New York's Harvard Club. So along with its beans, Green Mountain bundled services and tools, including coffee machines, cups, banners and training. Stiller created one- and two-day courses for customers with instruction about coffee farming, grinding and filtering. Now ExxonMobil is its biggest customer, representing 17% of sales last year. Last November Green Mountain signed a five-year agreement, beating out 11 rivals, to supply all 1,100 ExxonMobil company-owned stores and 500 franchise locations. Another long-shot bet: backing three unknown entrepreneurs peddling a single-serve coffee system. At the time, they held the patent on filter-wrapped individual portions of ground coffee, but had no product ready for market. Stiller invested $150,000 for a 1% stake in Keurig. Green Mountain patiently worked with them on product quality and flavor. Finally, in 1998, the Keurig machine rolled into offices like PricewaterhouseCoopers. Green Mountain, which produces K-Cup individual packages of coffee at its factory, pays Keurig an undisclosed royalty based on the number of packages it sells. Last year K-Cups contributed 15.7% of Green Mountain's revenues.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the nominee is supported by both the Senator from Utah and myself; and we had a unanimous rollcall vote in support of the nominee in the committee. And I strongly urge a unanimous rollcall vote in support of the nominee here. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is next on the agenda?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Daschle, and the distinguished deputy majority leader, Mr. Reid, who have worked so hard to get these nominations on the calendar so we can vote on them. William Johnson is the third Federal judge confirmed from New Mexico in just the past few weeks. We expedited the consideration of Christina Armijo in October, who was confirmed last month; likewise, Harris Hartz, President Bush's nominee to the Tenth Circuit from New Mexico. I had a hearing at the end of October, and he was confirmed last week. All three of these nominees came to us with the strong support of both Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman. I mention this because it is so helpful to our committee when the White House takes time to consult with both Senators from the home State and get their support. We got this kind of consensus: When we confirm Mr. Johnson, we are going to fill another judicial emergency vacancy. After that, we are going to another nominee, Clay Land, who has been supported by Senators Cleland and Miller. I mention this because if we confirm both these next 2, we will have confirmed 27 Federal judges since July, when I took over the chairmanship, and 6 court of appeals judges. To put that in perspective, since July, in those 5 months, we have confirmed as many as we confirmed all of the first year of the last President's administration--actually, a lot more judges in the courts of appeals. Everybody has been working very hard. I also mention to my colleagues, this morning we were finally able to get a quorum in the Judiciary Committee. We had 10 nominations go through, 5 of them judges, 5 other nominations from the Department of Justice, all of which will go now on the calendar.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. I had a fully constituted committee I think it was in late July.

Mr. LEAHY. We worked several weeks. It really was night and day. We had people going home at 2 o'clock in the morning and coming back at 5 o'clock in the morning to do that. I was getting e-mails at home at 3:30 in the morning from members of my staff and continued to do that until we got that bill out.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Nevada is right. We actually had to move much of the Judiciary staff out of the Dirksen Building. Some had been in the Hart Building in the proximity of the distinguished leader's office when the anthrax letter was opened. We were hampered by that because of medical treatment and still came to work. In fact, we went so far, as the Senator probably knows, as to hold hearings during the recesses to keep this going.

Mr. LEAHY. I have only been on the committee 25 years, but I cannot remember a time during those 25 years--in fact, the Senator from Nevada may be interested in this. Maybe he was involved in this. Does the Senator recall the day that part of the Capitol Building was evacuated because of the anthrax scare and all the other buildings were evacuated? The distinguished Senator from West Virginia made available his conference room in the Appropriations Committee. We held hearings in that conference room on more judges as the building was being evacuated and held a markup in executive session with 150 of us crowded into one room in the back, the President's Room, to get even more judges out which then the distinguished majority leader put on the calendar within, I think, 24 hours of that time and we were voting on them a couple days after that.

Mr. LEAHY. That means a great deal to me, and I appreciate that. I appreciate the help of Senators on both sides of the aisle in helping to move this forward.

Mr. LEAHY. Yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Of course, I will.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma, my friend, has talked to me about this on several occasions. We are trying to get through these calendars as quickly as we can. As I say, I have only been here as chairman for 5 months. Actually, there were a number of nominees prior to my becoming chairman who never got a hearing at the beginning of this year. We will have had far more courts of appeals judges than I think have ever been, or I can remember going through in a President's first year in office. We are going way beyond what the Senate usually does. It is certainly a much faster pace than the Senate has had in the last 4, 5, 6 years. If we can slow down a little bit the things that are happening around here--anthrax, September 11, all the things we wish we did not have--if the chairman of the committee could deal with just a few less death threats--not from my friend from Oklahoma. The anthrax letter did not have an Oklahoma return address, nor would I expect it to.

Mr. LEAHY. We are moving through them. We have done Fifth Circuit Judge Clement, Second Circuit Judge Parker, Fourth Circuit Judge Gregory. I mentioned from New Mexico a circuit judge.

Mr. LEAHY. The Senator from Oklahoma asks an appropriate question. I can assure him we are trying to move through as many as we can. I hope, for example, the President will nominate more district judges, too. There are about 77 percent district court vacancies; about 77 percent do not even have a nominee. There is a real problem and we will work with the administration. Some of the slowdowns have been taken care of, as the Senator from Oklahoma knows. We had a number of judges who were held up because the White House did not directly answer the question whether they had been arrested or convicted in the last 10 years. We thought that was at least a worthwhile thing to know for someone getting a lifetime appointment. I think the White House might have realized it made sense and allowed them to answer the question, and it broke a logjam. We had 10 nominations, 5 judges, that went through this morning. My intention is to keep moving as rapidly as we can. I ask the distinguished acting Republican leader, we could have rollcalls on the next two judges, or if he has no objection, I would ask we do them by voice vote. If he would like rollcalls, that is his right.

Mr. LEAHY. I did not request a rollcall vote. I ask for a voice vote.