Washington D.C. - On Friday the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee passed the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), also known as HR 2679. This bill will go to the full House for a vote. The bill's intent is to eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by state and local officials that results from the threat that a plaintiff may seek damages and attorney's fees. If the bill passes, advocacy groups like the ACLU would no longer be able to use the threat of monetary awards to force the removal of Ten Commandments displays, Nativity scenes, crosses from city seals, or the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Congressman Hostettler, who introduced the bill, stated, "This is a big victory for Americans who care about our rich religious heritage in this country. There is a lot of excitement about this bill." Senator Sam Brownback sponsored a similar Senate bill.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, gave oral testimony in favor of this bill before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. Mr. Staver pointed out that in every other area of litigation, a plaintiff must have sustained a direct injury in order to sue, but in Establishment Clause claims, a plaintiff merely has to claim he or she was offended by some religious symbol or action. This unusual exception has opened the floodgates to litigation. Mr. Staver also pointed out that Establishment Clause interpretation is both confused and conflicted. Government officials should not be financially punished for a minor misstep in this constitutional minefield. If the Act passes, a plaintiff who files suit and wins under the Establishment Clause would be entitled to an injunction, but could not recover damages, attorney's fees or costs, which have in some cases surpassed five hundred thousand dollars.

Mathew D. Staver commented: "The Public Expression of Religion Act is long overdue. The threat of attorney's fees and damages has been wielded like a bully club to beat local government officials into submission, even when the church-state claims are outrageous and frivolous. When the Supreme Court candidly admits that its Establishment Clause decisions are 'hopelessly confused,' how can we expect local government officials to navigate in the dark and then hit them with financial penalties?"