[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5793-H5795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOLEN VALOR ACT OF 2012
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 1775) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
establish a criminal offense relating to fraudulent claims about
military service, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1775
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Stolen Valor Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT RECEIPT OF MILITARY
DECORATIONS OR MEDALS.
(a) In General.--Section 704 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``wears,''; and
(2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
``(b) Fraudulent Representations About Receipt of Military
Decorations or Medals.--Whoever, with intent to obtain money,
property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds
oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal
described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under
this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.''.
(b) Addition of Certain Other Medals.--Section 704(d) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``If a decoration'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--If a decoration'';
(2) by inserting ``a combat badge,'' after ``1129 of title
10,''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Combat badge defined.--In this subsection, the term
`combat badge' means a Combat Infantryman's Badge, Combat
Action Badge, Combat Medical Badge, Combat Action Ribbon, or
Combat Action Medal.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 704 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended in each of subsections (c)(1) and (d)
by striking ``or (b)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1775, as
amended, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, was introduced
by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck). I want to thank him for his
dedication to protect the honor bestowed on our Nation's military
heroes.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, was introduced
by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck). I thank him for his dedication
to protect the honor bestowed on our nation's military heroes.
In 2006, a man who had created several false identities fraudulently
claimed to be a seriously injured Marine captain who suffered from post
traumatic stress disorder and a recipient of the Purple Heart and
Silver Star.
His tangled web of lies earned him credibility among other veterans,
law enforcement officials and politicians. He told these false stories
and used them for his own benefit, disrespecting those who had
honorably earned these awards for their service.
This is an example of a man who did not simply lie about receiving a
military award. He lied to defraud others and benefit himself,
discrediting those veterans who actually deserve recognition.
[[Page H5794]]
H.R. 1775 prevents similar fraud in the future and reaffirms
Congress' respect and gratitude for our Armed Forces. It ensures that
those who seek to exploit these medals for fraudulent gain are held
accountable.
We have a long-standing commitment to protect the status of military
decorations awarded to our military heroes who sacrifice greatly for us
in service.
The first honorary badges of distinction for military service date
back to George Washington's presidency. Washington stated that anyone
with the ``insolence to assume'' a badge that he did not earn would be
severely punished.
It has been a federal crime for nearly a century to wear,
manufacture, sell or fraudulently produce military decorations or
medals without authorization. In 2006, Congress enacted the Stolen
Valor Act after a rise in number of fraudulent claims of receipt of
military decorations, particularly the Medal of Honor.
This past June, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Alvarez, held that the
Stolen Valor Act wrongly criminalized speech protected by the First
Amendment. Simply put, lying about receiving a Medal of Honor, although
it may be offensive, is in fact protected free speech.
The Court did acknowledge that false claims about military
decorations, such as the Medal of Honor, demean the value of the award
and may offend the true holders of these decorations.
H.R. 1775, the ``Stolen Valor Act of 2011,'' clarifies the law to
make it a crime to fraudulently hold oneself out to be a recipient of
the Congressional Medal of Honor or other enumerated military
decoration with the intent to obtain money, property or other tangible
benefit.
The term ``fraudulently'' incorporates the necessary knowledge
requirement. Black's Law Dictionary defines ``fraud'' as ``a knowing
misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to
induce another to act to his or her injury.'' It clarifies that there
must be specific intent to engage in the crime, namely that the fraud
is committed for money, property or other tangible benefit.
The term ``tangible benefit'' is intended to cover those ``valuable
considerations'' beyond money or property, such as offers of
employment, which Justice Kennedy identified as appropriately
prohibited benefits to a fraud.
H.R. 1775 clarifies the Stolen Valor Act to protect the right to free
speech but also ensures that those whose speech is intended to defraud
and do not enjoy First Amendment protection will be held responsible.
I again thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck) for his leadership
on this issue. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Heck), the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. HECK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me in
protecting the honor and valor of our military heroes by passing H.R.
1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011.
On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor
Act of 2005, concluding that the broad nature of the law infringed upon
the guaranteed protection of free speech provided by the First
Amendment of our Constitution. The Court determined that the act
``sought to control and suppress all false statements on this one
subject without regard as to whether the lie was made for the purpose
of material gain.''
However, in concurring with the decision of the plurality, Justice
Breyer stated that a ``more finely tailored statute that shows the
false statement caused specific harm or was at least material could
significantly reduce the threat of First Amendment harm while
permitting the statute to achieve its important protective objective.''
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what my legislation does. The Stolen
Valor Act of 2011 resolves these constitutional issues by clearly
defining that the objective of the law is to target and punish those
who misrepresent their alleged service with the intent of profiting
personally or financially. Defining the intent helps ensure that this
law will pass constitutional scrutiny while at the same time achieving
its primary objective, which is to preserve and protect the honor and
integrity of military service and awards.
In 2006, every Member of both the House and Senate clearly understood
the need for this legislation and demonstrated that by unanimously
passing the prior Stolen Valor Act in each Chamber. Mr. Speaker, the
need to protect the honor, service, and sacrifice of our veterans and
military personnel is just as strong today as it was in 2006.
{time} 1520
This House has the opportunity to once again show our servicemembers
and veterans that we value the magnitude of their sacrifice while at
the same time protecting the constitutional rights that they fought so
hard to protect.
H.R. 1775 enjoys broad bipartisan support with 107 cosponsors and is
supported by numerous veteran service organizations, including the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the U.S. Navy, the Fleet
Reserve Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services,
the National Guard Association of the United States, the Association of
the United States Army, the Military Officers Association of America,
the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and AMVETS.
I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers for
helping to move this important legislation that was reported
unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. I would also like to thank
my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin) for sponsoring this substitute
amendment during committee consideration.
Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that we pass this bill on the 11th
anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 in recognition of the brave
servicemen and women who have fought and died in the war to bring the
perpetrators of these attacks to justice. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 1775.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act. It
has long been a tradition in the United States to recognize those in
our armed services who stand out among their peers for service to our
Nation by awarding them special military medals and declarations.
Recipients of these special honors have often been wounded in the line
of duty or have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Military medals and declarations constitute a tribute, as well as
tangible manifestation of our Nation's deep and abiding recognition and
appreciation to our servicemembers.
There are, however, those who falsely claim to be recipients of these
special honors. Such malicious actions denigrate the integrity of those
honors to those who have legitimately received them.
In response, a law was enacted with the laudable purpose of ensuring
the integrity of military honors by punishing those who make such false
representations.
Unfortunately, the scope of the law was recently found by the Supreme
Court to be unconstitutional as an abridgement of the First Amendment's
right to free speech because the First Amendment even protects
despicable speech.
Justice Kennedy, however, writing for the court set out certain
guidelines that Congress could follow in remedying the statute's
constitutional flaw. He wrote:
Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or
other valuable considerations, say offers of employment, it is well-
established that the government may restrict speech without affronting
the First Amendment.
So, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, this bill adheres to this
suggested construct by amending the current law to prohibit individuals
from fraudulently representing themselves as recipients of these honors
in order to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefits. This
will actually cover most of the incidences of false claims.
As a result, this measure will, in full compliance with the
Constitution, ensure that no one will financially benefit or receive
other tangible rewards from falsely representing that they have been
awarded these honors and this will cover all of the despicable cases of
false claims that the Constitution will allow.
H.R. 1775 will protect the honor and integrity of our Nation's
military medals and decorations as well as respect the rights accorded
to Americans under the First Amendment.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will yield as much time as he
might
[[Page H5795]]
consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin) who is an active
member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor
Act of 2011, and urge its passage.
I would like to thank Congressman Joe Heck for his leadership on this
issue as well as Judiciary Committee Chairman Smith, also Ranking
Member Conyers, for their bipartisan cooperation passing this bill out
of committee.
As a proud cosponsor of the Stolen Valor Act, I offered a substitute
amendment during committee consideration in response to the recent
Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Alvarez. The court instructed that,
however despicable, a false claim about receiving a military award is
protected by the First Amendment. The substitute amendment, which was
adopted unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on August 1, 2012,
incorporates the Supreme Court's opinion and recommendations in
Alvarez.
The bill we consider today ensures that the Medal of Honor, Purple
Heart, and other military awards will be protected from fraud and that
those who make false claims of military service or awards will face
criminal penalties. I believe that protecting the integrity and valor
of American servicemembers who have distinguished themselves in defense
of this Nation is critically important. We must ensure that the Medal
of Honor and other military awards are protected from fraud, and the
Stolen Valor Act helps in that effort.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time
as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1775, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________