[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 103 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4894-S4895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. WEBB (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 3372. A bill to amend section 704 of title 18, United States Code; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am introducing this bill today in response 
to a recent Supreme Court holding that invalidated the provisions of 
what has become known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The Supreme 
Court decision regarded a place in the Stolen Valor Act that made all 
false statements about the receipt of military decorations a crime. It 
states that this act, in the view of the Court:

       . . . seeks to control and suppress all false statements on 
     this one subject in almost limitless times and settings 
     without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of 
     material gain.

  Basically what the Supreme Court was saying is that we cannot freeze 
all first amendment rights to make claims about anything in this 
society unless there was a purpose at the end of it in terms of some 
sort of a material gain.
  I understand and fully accept the Court's holding in this case about 
the overly broad measures of the Stolen Valor Act of 2006. The 
legislation I am introducing today is designed to remedy this issue and 
to bring criminal penalties to those who falsely claim military service 
or the receipt of unearned awards, medals, and ribbons if these 
statements were made in pursuit of a tangible benefit or a personal 
gain.
  This legislation is drafted under the guidance of the holding of the 
Supreme Court in this case. I am a strong believer in the first 
amendment. I believe it is sacrosanct in our society. I believe the 
freedom to speak one's mind and to dissent when one opposes a proposal 
or an issue or a government policy is the very foundation of a truly 
free society.
  At the same time, the very special reverence with the first amendment 
should be measured against the equally special place our society holds 
for military service. There are strongly emotional reasons that this is 
so and there are clearly other tangible benefits that derive from 
military service.
  I would point out something that for many of us seems obvious, but I 
think it needs to be restated as we consider the Supreme Court decision 
on the Stolen Valor Act and what the implications are for the 
legislation I am introducing. The experience of military service, 
particularly hard combat, is a unique phenomenon in our society. There 
was a saying when I was in the Marine Corps many years ago that ``For 
those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor that the protected 
shall never know.'' Once someone has been in hard combat, they will 
never see life around them in the same way again. That doesn't mean 
they will be worse or particularly better or damaged or in some way 
empowered, but for the rest of their lives they will truly see a lot of 
things differently. They will have seen horrible events that strain 
their emotions, yet increase their ability to understand tragedy and to 
value human courage in many different stripes and forms. They will have 
learned to appreciate the inherent contradictions between the pristine 
intellectual debates about war and the reality of a blood-soaked 
battlefield where decisions must be made in an instant while human 
lives hang precariously in the balance.
  These lives comprise the burden and the value of military service. 
Neither the scars nor the lessons disappear when one leaves the 
battlefield or when one leaves the military. The men and women who step 
forward to serve carry this burden and share these values for the rest 
of their lives. Our veterans have given a portion of themselves to our 
country, and our country has always been good at reciprocating. Our 
veterans love America and America loves our veterans.
  It is important to understand the impact that military service can 
have on one's life in order to comprehend what a disservice it is for 
others to pretend to have served. There is an old country song that 
says ``You've got to suffer if you want to sing the blues.'' Those who 
have not served, have not paid the price that comes with earning that 
respect. In many cases they are indeed attempting to gain tangible 
benefits that have been designed to reward and honor military service 
when they pretend to have served.
  Here are a few of those benefits that are in the legislation I am 
outlining: benefits relating to the military service provided by the 
Federal Government or a State or local government; the ability to gain 
employment or professional advancement; financial remuneration, for 
instance, receiving money for books or writings related to the notion 
of having served; seeking an effect

[[Page S4895]]

on the outcome of criminal or civil court proceedings; and seeking to 
impact one's personal credibility in a political campaign. There are 
others, but those are clearly tangible benefits that come from stating 
that one served in the military when one did not.
  The journey of this Stolen Valor legislation begins with one 
individual whom I have known for a very long time. His name is Jug 
Burkett. He was a Vietnam veteran, like myself. He grew up in the 
military. His father had a career in the military. He identified this 
problem many years ago and looked at the impact of those who had 
claimed to have served or who had claimed to have served in areas where 
they did not on all the areas I just mentioned.
  He wrote a book many years called ``Stolen Valor.'' He had quite a 
journey with this book and has pursued the issue of honesty and 
integrity in our legal process and in other ways. It was largely 
because of Jug Burkett's effort that the Stolen Valor Act was passed in 
2006.
  I do not believe the Supreme Court decision in any way invalidates 
the concerns Jug Burkett and others have had. In fact, I think what we 
are doing with this legislation is to make sure proper concerns are 
laid out without being overly broad so that any words said in a bar 
room or someone sitting around personally is not going to have legal 
authorities measuring every single word anyone says.
  We have designed this very specifically with respect to the concerns 
the Supreme Court laid out. I may be offering this bill as an amendment 
to the National Defense Authorization Act. My hope is this amended 
language could gain the support of all of our colleagues and that we 
could move this bill quickly, perhaps as an independent bill.
  This bill respects the first amendment. It respects military service, 
and it assures a special place in our society that has always been 
reserved for those who have stepped forward and gone into harm's way on 
our behalf.
                                 ______