we like or we'll pack the court. issue rulings we like for we'll pack the court. this is not normal behavior. these are from a party whose agenda is so alien to the constitution that they feel threatened by fair and faithful judges. and mr. president, this is what i would say, when the simple notion that judges should be faithful to the constitution looks like an attack on your agenda, maybe it's your agenda that needs a makeover, not our independent judiciary. when you were this willing to launch unhinged personal attacks, you relegal a whole lot more about your own radicalism than about the men and women you target. so this is my committee, mr. president. and the commitment of all of moi republican colleagues. as long as we remain in the

senate, we will fight to preserve our fair and independent judiciary. >> last year we on the judiciary committee conducted an incredibly thorough review of a nominee to the supreme court of the united states. we dug into justice kavanaugh's personal and professional life and discussed concerns openly in front of the public. allegations were raised against the justices, but none could be corroborated or verified. i know because i had a team of dozens of lawyers and investigators chasing down each allegation that we received. my team spoke to 45 individuals

and took 25 written statements. now, anyone can review the 414-page investigation summary report that i released last november. we laid out the information we received, including some of the ugliest of claims. in the end, there was no credible evidence to support any of the allegations. br brett kavanaugh then was actually appointed to the supreme court as described by this body and constitution. now, fast forward to this past weekend and the issues that i, and a lot of other members of the senate, are being asked about this very day. just that there's nothing else going on in this town, but you dig up something that happened a year ago.

the new york times published a book excerpt about justice kavanaugh's younger days that has fueled a very fresh rumor from someone whose friends claim contacted senators on the committee. that person, mr. steyers didn't reach out or provide information to the committee majority. apparently he also didn't provide any information to these writers. it's only on the word of two anonymous sources that his name and accusation comes up in this story in the new york times and again, my office never received anything from mr. steyer or his unnamed friends and we never received an allegation against

kavanaugh like the one referenced in the report over this weekend. after interviewing eight people related to the ramirez allegations, not once was mrmr. mr. steyer's name mentioned. had by staff received substantive allegations or had he approached me or my staff, we would have attempted to take a statement and interview him. but the alleged victim, who also didn't speak to these writers, apartmeparently does n recall the incident. at the point that the new york times failed to include in its initial coverage. now, it happens that accountability is a cornerstone of democracy. i welcome scrutiny of my work.

i frequently refer to reporters, journalists, as the police of our democratic system. but today i'm reminded of a very old addage. who will watch the watchman? this week report includes some embarrassing, irresponsible missteps. mistakes that warrant serious self-reflection. a year ago after the interviews with dozens of people, the new york times couldn't even corroborate the allegations laid out by miss ramirez and declined to report on them. with nothing, but a year of time and another interview with ramirez herself, the paper

thought those unverified claims were suddenly worth printing. no more corroboration. no more verification, coming only days before the release of the author's book. i can't help, but wonder if the timing has something to do with the decision to run the story. maybe sell more books. they also laid out what commentators are now calling new allegations. let me be clear, this is not an allegation. it's barely a third hand rumor. these writers, can you believe this, these writers didn't even speak to the man who they claimed originally recounted

this rumor. what's left are only layers and layers of decades old hearsay. no more corroboration, no more verification. not even anything from the accuser himself. and nothing, most importantly, nothing from the person who was allegedly involved. now the most shameful piece of this episode is that it took more than a full day after publication for the editors to intervene and to provide critical context. an editor's note added to the story last night reads, quote, the book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the

incident. let me quote again. she does not recall the incident. that is the alleged victim. that's the opposite corroboration and verification. in the legal world, this sort of thing is called exculpatory information. when it's not laid bare to provide greater context, it creates a serious credibility problem. in this case, the new york times withheld crucial facts that undercut its own reporting. we now have an uncorroborated accusation rooted only in

unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of the event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember. now, you know about new york times. they say-- their slogan is, they only fit what is fit to print. i just described the situation of uncollaboration rooted in unnamed sources with no direct knowledge of this event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember. i'll get back to the slogan of the newspaper. when did this stuff i described become something fit to print by the supposed american paper of record?

the sad consequences of this article are a misinformed public, a greater divide in our own recourse -- discourse, and a deeper lack of faith in our news media. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the student experience is really, really valuable to me. >> it had a huge effect on our life and helped us grow and learn as people going into our college years. >> for past winners of c-span's stude student cam video production. >> i'm at university in des moines, iowa. the fun part i got to be in the middle of the caucus season and meet different candidates and because of c-span i've had experience in the equipment and knowledge, being able to actually film some of them. >> this year, we're asking

middle school and high school students to record a short video documentary, what issue do you most want presidential candidates to address during the game. >> and reflecting differing points of view. we're ordering 100,000 in total cash prizes, including a $5,000 grand prize. >> be passionate what you're discussing to express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will receive it to be. and know that in the greatest country in the history of the earth, it does matter. >> for more information to help you get started, go to our website, student cam.org. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this tuesday. senate lawmakers continuing work this week on executive nominations. at noon eastern today, senators will take votes on u.s. ambassador nominees for the united arab emirates and sweden.

later this afternoon, they'll work on several treasury and state nominations and today senators will adjourn for their weekly caucus meetings. now to live coverage here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, our fortress and might. deliver us from clouds of pessimism and fear. lead