WASHINGTON – Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) delivered this statement during a full committee hearing titled, "Exploring the Feasibility and Security of Technology to Conduct Remote Voting in the House."

CLICK HERE to watch the hearing.

Davis' remarks as prepared for delivery:

Chairperson Lofgren, thank you for holding today's hearing. It is one of the first public-facing discussions on the feasibility of remote voting for the House of Representatives and I think it is an important conversation to have. I hope today is the start of a transparent process for evaluating what remote voting options are feasible for the House to consider and what the consequences might be of moving forward with implementation.

I would like to welcome all our witnesses, especially former Speaker Gingrich. I believe the Speaker offers a unique perspective and appreciate his willingness to participate.

Before we discuss the possibility of remote voting, I think it is important to lay-out where we are now, how we got to this point, and the process that has driven the operational decision making of this institution during the COVID 19 pandemic.

Earlier this year as the coronavirus began spreading across our country, and the rest of the world, we knew it was only a matter of time until the People's House would be impacted.

In March, there was a bi-partisan effort to quickly transition thousands of staff to telework. This was an enormous lift and only made possible through the tireless work of the Chief Administrative Officer and Sergeant at Arms offices.

Then the conversation turned to additional procedural changes that would be required for the House to continue to operate. These efforts did not incorporate bi-partisan input.

On March 23^rd, Democrats released a report concluding remote voting in any form would "almost certainly cause unintended consequences if not done with adequate forethought and discussion" and "change cannot be implemented overnight, and likely cannot be accomplished in time to address the current crisis." Despite this and without any public hearings or bipartisan support the majority passed H. Res 965 on May 15^th which authorized proxy voting, remote committee proceedings, and authorized remote voting pending a certification from Chairperson Lofgren.

Since the implementation of H. Res 965, 572 proxy votes have been cast on the House Floor, dozens of virtual hearings and markups, and a lawsuit filed in Federal Court on the grounds that proxy voting is unconstitutional.

During today's hearing we will hear lots of discussion on IT capabilities that could support remote voting, the types of requirements such a system should have to safeguard against threats, and examples of entities already using remote voting. Four months before this hearing, when it became apparent the direction the democratic majority was heading, I directed my team to formally engage with GAO to better understand remote voting technologies. This engagement has been productive, and I am confident that there is technology that exists to support remote voting. I also have confidence in the Clerk and her staff's ability to execute if directed.

What I am concerned about is that the House seems to be in a very reactionary posture, with sweeping changes being made with little consideration around longer-term impacts. We have already seen numerous hearings and markups disrupted by technical difficulties resulting in the nature of those proceedings changing; fewer stand-alone amendments being made-in-order for Floor consideration; increased usage of en bloc amendment packages at committee meetings and on the Floor; and dozens of examples of members from both parties not following the prescribed regulations for H.Res 965 with no consequences. No one can say with a straight face that these trends are a good thing or that the quality of the deliberative process that is a hallmark of the House hasn't been sacrificed.

Over the last 6 months we have seen "essential" workers across our nation step up, make sacrifices, and take on risk, all in the name of our collective wellbeing. I know the grocery store clerks, truck drivers, farmers, healthcare workers, and first responders in my district expect their elected leaders to have the same wiliness and patriotic duty to make sacrifices, just as they do every shift. Americans look to their elected leaders to set an example. And they don't appreciate Congress skipping out on their duties to attend events across their states that seem more desirable than the difficult task of governing in a pandemic.

As our country continues to be impacted by the coronavirus, the example I want to set is that we stand side-by-side with the "essential" workers of this country and I don't believe that can be done solely behind a computer screen and over emails. We have debated scenarios like this before and members who are unable to travel can submit statements of the Congressional Record and we have a Rule, that this majority adopted at the beginning of this Congress, that allows for quorum to be adjusted in an emergency.

I will end with a quote from the UK's House of Commons Leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg who recently announced they will be scaling back their virtual parliament:

"Rather than suffering the depredation of a muted hybrid parliament we are once again talking to each other in ways impossible when we were scattered to the four winds. Rather than wading through the treacle of the hybrid proceedings, we are once again feet a foot and dancing a legislative quick step."

Thank you and I yield back.