[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 166 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5912-S5913]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Trump Administration

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about the 
question of impeachment, which, of course, is being debated across the 
country.
  Evidence continues to mount regarding actions the President has 
taken. Of course, this issue is not only worthy of debate but also 
worthy of inquiry and review and even debate and discussion here in the 
Senate.
  From the Mueller report to the recent revelations regarding the 
President's dealing with Ukraine and its President, evidence indicates 
that the President is not only willing to take actions which, in my 
judgment, amount to an abuse of power--in fact, I think the behavior of 
the President on the phone call with the Ukrainian President was a 
textbook case of abuse of power. Apparently, he wants to enlist others 
to defend the indefensible--this behavior--and has said other things 
that are troubling to so many Americans.
  I think it is important to provide some historical perspective on 
impeachment, and I will seek to do some of that today. This is by no 
means a full review of the history, but I think it is important to talk 
about some of the questions our Founders were wrestling with.
  Our Founders grappled with many different questions as they debated 
the Constitution itself, particularly the nature and the power of the 
Office of the President of the United States. As our Founders debated 
how to hold the President accountable during the 1787 Constitutional 
Convention in Philadelphia, Elbridge Gerry said as follows regarding 
the issue of impeachment: ``A good magistrate will not fear 
[impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.''
  Consistent with Gerry's remarks, our Constitution provides an 
impeachment process for ``Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and 
Misdemeanors.'' At the time of the drafting, our Founders' 
understanding of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' was informed by 
centuries of English legal precedent.
  We know, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 65, 
impeachment should stem from ``abuse or violation of some public 
trust.'' I will say it again: ``abuse or violation of some public 
trust.'' Informed by this history, Congress has consistently 
interpreted the phrase broadly to mean ``serious violations of the 
public trust''--that was one understanding--and has explained that 
``the phrase refers to misconduct that damages the state and the 
operations of governmental institutions, and is not limited to criminal 
misconduct.'' That is an important distinction--``not limited to 
criminal misconduct.''
  There is no requirement for a President to engage in a quid pro quo. 
Any kind of quid pro quo arrangement is not required for impeachment, 
although it is certainly an impeachable offense to engage in that kind 
of conduct. Rather, our Constitution merely requires ``abuse or 
violation of some public trust,'' as Hamilton spoke to.
  Since Special Counsel Mueller issued his report on Russian 
interference in the 2016 election and, more recently, as testimony has 
emerged about President Trump's conduct toward Ukraine, I have 
attempted to assess how President Trump's actions fit in our historical 
and current understanding of what ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' 
means.
  This is an undertaking that must be done in a considered manner and 
after reviewing all of the relevant information that is available. But 
I am increasingly convinced that Speaker Pelosi was correct in calling 
for a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump's conduct. A 
failure by Congress to pursue impeachment in the face of grave offenses 
by the President would be insulting to our Constitution and insulting 
to our values.
  Let's talk about the Ukraine example for a moment. Over the past 
several weeks, our Nation has been confronted by credible and detailed 
press reports, as well as exhaustive testimony, in some cases lasting 8 
hours, 9 hours, 10 hours at a time, just for one witness, and this 
testimony has come from both career diplomats and State Department 
officials indicating that the

[[Page S5913]]

President has been employing his personal attorney to manage a shadow 
diplomacy agenda focused on personal vendettas and unfounded conspiracy 
theories in Ukraine.
  In a telephone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, President 
Trump--immediately after the Ukrainian President raised the issue of 
purchasing Javelins to defend his country from Russian aggression--
asked the Ukrainian President to ``do us a favor though'' by working 
with his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and launching an investigation into a 
discredited conspiracy theory regarding a DNC server in Ukraine. To say 
that theory is discredited is an understatement. It has been debunked, 
so said a former Homeland Security Advisor to President Trump, among 
others.
  President Trump also asked President Zelensky ``to look into'' Joe 
Biden's son and explained that ``a lot of people want to find out'' 
about Biden--a political rival who, of course, is running for 
President.
  After a memorandum of the phone call was released to the public, the 
House Intelligence Committee released a text message from the top U.S. 
diplomat in Ukraine, who indicated that he thought it was ``crazy [for 
the President] to withhold security assistance for help with a 
political campaign.''
  Other officials have since come forward, some even resigning because 
of their serious concerns over the White House's handling of Ukraine 
policy. Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Secretary 
of State, testified that he resigned for two reasons: ``the failure, in 
my view, of the State Department to offer support to Foreign Service 
employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine, and, second, 
by what appears to be the utilization of our ambassadors overseas to 
advance a domestic political objective.'' That is what Mr. McKinley, 
who just left the State Department, said.
  Our Founders had the foresight to ensure that the power of the 
President was not unlimited and that Congress could, if necessary, hold 
the Executive accountable for abuses of power through the impeachment 
process. Surely, not every instance of Presidential wrongdoing merits 
impeachment. Using the vast powers of impeachment in a cavalier fashion 
would be an insult to our Constitution.
  This inquiry is not simply about President Trump's abuse of power. 
This inquiry is about our democracy and the values that the Founders 
agreed should guide our Nation.
  Impeachment is not what anyone in this town would prefer. It is what 
our Constitution demands--demands--when an Executive abuses his or her 
power in a manner that ``damages the state and the operations of 
government institutions.'' That is from an earlier impeachment in the 
1860s.
  As Hamilton said so long ago--but so prescient--when there is an 
``abuse or violation of some public trust,'' we are summoned--
summoned--by our constitutional duty to act.
  To fail to act would be a dereliction of that duty, thereby inviting 
this executive and future executives to abuse that public trust with 
impunity. We should never do that.


                               H.R. 3055

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, very briefly, I wanted to highlight a story 
that was in today's Wall Street Journal, entitled ``As Court Case 
Imperils Affordable Care Act, Some States Prepare Contingency Plans.'' 
That is the headline. The subheadline is this: ``Lawmakers explore ways 
to preserve coverage, benefits if the health law is struck down.''
  This is the opening paragraph that I will read--it is not very long, 
but I want to read it--from the story today:

       A federal appeals court decision that could strike down the 
     Affordable Care Act as soon as this month has rattled 
     officials in several states who are pursuing legislation to 
     preserve some coverage in the absence of any Trump 
     administration contingency plan.
       Lawmakers in states including Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico 
     and California have passed bills or are reviewing action 
     aimed at dealing with the fallout if the ACA is overturned.

  That is from the very beginning of the article. I will not go 
further, other than to say that this is a grave matter. If a Federal 
appeals court were to rule in favor of the moving party on appeal--or I 
should say the moving party at the beginning of the suit--and affirm 
the district court, what would happen if that were the case? The 
patient protection in the Affordable Care Act would be wiped out, and 
it would cause not just chaos but would take away protections from 
people like those who have protections for a preexisting condition and 
would also take healthcare coverage away from millions, if not tens of 
millions.
  This is a critically important matter, and it deserves and warrants 
the attention of Members of the Senate and the House as well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.