Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Speaker, today we debate whether we should amend the Constitution of the United States to allow House Members to be…”

“Mr. Speaker, today we debate whether we should amend the Constitution of the United States to allow House Members to be appointed in the wake of mass vacancies caused by a terrorist attack. After September 11, 2001, no one would deny the real potential of such a catastrophe striking this body, but fundamentally today's debate is about whether to preserve lawmaking by a House of Representatives elected by the people or to deny the right of elected representation during the most crucial moments of American history and allow lawmaking by an appointed aristocracy. I would urge the membership to soundly defeat this constitutional amendment to preserve the People's House as an elected House and not as an appointed House. Let us be clear, any constitutional amendment denying the right to elected representation would accomplish what no terrorist could, namely striking a fatal blow to what has always been the People's House. The House, unlike the Presidency and the Senate, are unique among all branches and bodies of the entire Federal Government. It is the only branch institutionally designed to always reflect the popular will through the legislation it passes. When terrorists attacked on September 11, 2001, it was an elected not an appointed Congress that acted in its wake; and the legislation passed by that elected Congress has a legitimacy that legislation passed by an appointed Congress would not have had.”