Presidential Election Reform Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.
Madam Speaker, when I saw that there was going to be a bill rushed to the House floor with 5 days remaining in a legislative calendar without a committee hearing, I thought maybe the Democratic majority would be rushing to the floor a bill to address inflation that is clobbering the American people.
No.
I thought maybe they would be rushing to the floor a bill to address the crime crisis that is plaguing cities across the United States.
But no.
I thought maybe there would be a bill rushed to the House floor without a committee hearing 51 hours after the text was introduced to address the crisis taking place at our border and the millions of immigrants coming into the United States illegally and the fentanyl that is coming across our U.S.-Mexico border and killing thousands of Americans.
But no.
So what is so important that a bill needs to be rushed to the House floor without any committee hearing to review and analyze the bill?
And it is the Presidential Election Reform Act.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Elections of the House Administration Committee, I have to admit I am disappointed we didn't have the opportunity to thoughtfully review the legislation before us.
In fact, we haven't had a hearing in the Subcommittee on Elections since July. So I think now is our moment, unfortunately, with only 30 minutes on the minority's side, to actually dive in and analyze the legislation before us.
With any important piece of legislation, in particular, one like this that impacts our national elections and the elections of our President, the first question I ask myself is: Will the bill before us boost people's confidence in our election process? The bill fails the test.
I would highlight, in particular, section 4 of this bill that gives candidates a loophole to define what a catastrophic event is, which might include a natural disaster or national health emergency like COVID. Why is this so important?
The candidate for President could--up to a full day following the election--request an extension for the election by up to 5 days if they feel there is a ``catastrophic event'' that was sufficient to prevent a substantial portion of a State's electorate from casting a ballot on election day.
The bill doesn't properly define catastrophic event. Often in this body, we take the time in committee in regular order to understand what the terms of the bill mean, to give an opportunity to improve the text to provide certainty and clarity to the American people going forward. We are let down by the fact that we are not following regular process in this case.
Instead of continuing to undermine faith in the elections process, we should instead pursue commonsense legislation that supports election integrity and respects the Constitution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, pursue legislation that respects the Constitution and Federalism, such as legislation like the American Confidence in Elections Act that Ranking Member Davis introduced back in July to enhance the integrity in our elections.
We heard earlier the majority leader mention that there is ambiguity in our election system and that is what this is about. If that is what this is about--if we are actually trying to remove the ambiguity in our election system, which is a very worthy cause, why not have a hearing on this bill?
I haven't yet heard one person from the majority's side explain why this bill is being rushed to the floor 51 hours after the text was introduced without using the consideration of the Senate bill as the basis of this legislative text. I think that question needs to be answered today.
We need to actually dive into what this bill does to actually allow the American people to have confidence in our election system. I remain disappointed the House did not take the thoughtful approach that the Senate takes, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source