Washington, D.C.—I want to thank the witnesses for the testimony this morning and thank Mr. Hostettler for bringing this bill and Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing this morning.

    I am not so much with questions for the panel as I am just an opportunity to reflect somewhat on my overall viewpoint on this. And I think it is framed a great deal on the remark that was made by Mr. Hostettler when he said given the muck of Establishment Clause jurisprudence today.

    And, of course, I don't know if there has been testimony here and discussions about the text of the Constitution. But it has always been a source of despair to me to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, the very center of the place where one might go if they were seeking to hear profound constitutional arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States. I have gone there a number of times to listen to those profound constitutional arguments and those profound issues that so much shape this society and that are the core, I believe, of one of the foundations at least and the most important foundation of the greatness of America.

    And a couple of those arguments before the court would be the affirmative action cases that came in some couple of years ago and the Ten Commandments cases that were before the court. I don't remember the exact date on that, but I sat in on that.

    And as I listened to those profound constitutional arguments, I listened for them. But I have not heard one before ht Supreme Court. It takes a very nuanced ear to pick out a constitutional argument before the Supreme Court. And yet we are here arguing case law as if somehow it were decided upon the Constitution when yes, you can read the briefs and you can find constitutional arguments there.

    But the case law that is being argued before the court is targeted at the nuances of the psychological analysis of perhaps a swing justice. And to sit there for an hour on a case and listen to those nuanced arguments targeted at the idiosyncrasies perhaps, maybe even the legal idiosyncrasies of a swing justice and then conclude that somehow the Supreme Court has ruled upon the text of the Constitution is a source of great frustration to me.

    And, in fact, when I walk to the Supreme Court to hear the Ten Commandments cases, I walked in out of the bright sunlight and before my eyes adjusted to the darkness inside the Supreme Court building, I was met by a security guard. And I introduced myself, and I said, ''I am Congressman Steve King, and I am here to hear the Ten Commandments cases.'' And he said—and this is for the record—''My name is Moses, and I am here to lead you.''

    And he was a wonderful guard. Moses led me in, and he led me out. He led me past the oaken doors that have the Ten Commandments inscribed in them into the chamber of the Supreme Court where up on the frieze as if I were sitting in Justice Ginsburg's seat, I would make my expression to the Moses upon the frieze in this fashion up above on her left and on the left of all the justices. And she referenced the Moses with the Ten Commandments there and said that he is simply up there among, I believe she said, 25 other lawmakers or lawgivers.

    Now, the only figure I recognize up there is Moses. And the rest of them are pretty obscure from my understanding of Greek mythology or history. And it is—and so, then on the other side of the Supreme Court building, on the east side, on the pediment, there sits Moses also with the Ten Commandments on his knees as he sits down opened up for all to see. And he sends a message out for all to notice that here this is a nation that is based upon the rule of law and the foundation of that rule of law is God's law.

    You cannot escape that. And if architects—excuse me, archeologists should somehow or another—or if something happens like Pompeii to America and we were sealed off with a lava flow and in 10,000 years if they would dig up this city and chisel the lava off of our buildings, they would see expressions of religion engraved into the marble and into the stone and into the concrete as part of who we are, of the foundation of this nation.

    And so, that foundation is this Constitution. And the Constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    They will read this Constitution. And then I would challenge those archeologists to go back and read through this case law, not having any institutional memory of the Constitution, but just simply starting with the most recent case law and then begin to read and understand like hieroglyphics and divine what was the foundation for these decisions. And I don't care how smart they might be 10,000 or 20,000 years from now. No one could discern the Constitution by reading backwards through the case law.
 
    And that is why we have this debate here today, because we have gotten so far away from the text and the original intent of the Constitution. It is unrecognizable in the case law today.

    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

You may access more information on this hearing at http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings.aspx?ID=149