[House Report 113-84]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 113-84
======================================================================
STOLEN VALOR ACT OF 2013
_______
May 20, 2013.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 258]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 258) to amend title 18, United States Code, with
respect to fraudulent representations about having received
military declarations or medals, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 5
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 6
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 6
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 258 amends the Federal criminal code to narrow the
scope of the current prohibition on falsely holding oneself out
to be a recipient of certain military decorations.
Specifically, H.R. 258 amends the current statute to only
subject those who, with intent to obtain money, property, or
other tangible benefit, fraudulently hold themselves out to be
a recipient of certain military decorations to a fine or up to
1 year in prison. The bill limits the application of this
penalty to fraudulent claims related to only the Congressional
Medal of Honor and those decorations or medals listed in
subsection (d) of section 704 of Title 18. The bill amends
subsection (a) of 704 to remove the term ``wears'' and amends
subsection (d) of 704 to add ``combat badges'' and a definition
of such term to the list of decorations and medals.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Congress enacted the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 on December
20, 2006, to expand the existing prohibition against wearing,
manufacturing, or selling military decorations or medals
without legal authorization. The bill imposed penalties for
falsely representing oneself as a recipient of any medal or
honor authorized by Congress for the armed services and imposed
increased penalties for violations involving the Congressional
Medal of Honor, a distinguished service cross, an Air Force
Cross, a Navy Cross, a silver star, or a purple heart.
The Act responded to a proliferation of false claims by
imposters claiming to be decorated war heroes. In Illinois, one
man attended numerous Marine Corp functions, military funerals,
and fund-raisers posing as a retired Marine Corp colonel. He
claimed to have been awarded the Purple Heart eight times, the
only Marine to earn such distinction, as well as the Navy
Cross. It turns out he never served a single day as a Marine.
In St. Louis, Federal authorities arrested a man at a local
Marine Corp event who claimed to be a decorated officer. He had
previously been spotted at the annual Marine Corp birthday ball
wearing the Navy Cross, two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars,
along with numerous other medals. He too has never served a
single day as a Marine.
In 2003, 642 Virginia residents falsely indicated on tax
forms to be the recipient of a Medal of Honor, which afforded
them an exemption from state tax on military retirement
income.\1\ This, despite the fact that, at the time, there were
only four living Medal of Honor recipients in Virginia and 132
nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Colimore, Pinning Crime on Fake Heroes: N. J. Agent Helps Expose
and Convict Those with Bogus U. S. Medals, Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb.
11, 2004, available at http://articles.
philly.com/2004-02-11/news/25374213_1_medals-military-imposters-
distinguished-flying-cross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the Justice Department and Department of Veterans'
Affairs Office of Inspector General launched Operation Stolen
Valor--a year-long operation that culminated in a number of
arrests and convictions. In the Northwest, a dozen cases
resulted in fraud totals of more than $1.4 million.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Northwest Crackdown on Fake Veterans in ``Operation Stolen
Valor,'' U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 21, 2007, available at http://
www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/sep/operationstolenvalor.
html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2012, a 70-year-old man was sentenced to more
than 7 years following his guilty plea to numerous counts of
defrauding the Federal Government. Warren Parker admitted to
lying about his receipt of three Silver Stars and three Purple
Hearts during the Vietnam War to obtain in excess of $7 million
in government contracts awarded to small businesses owned by
service-disabled veterans.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Fake war hero gets 7-year sentence for fraud, Assoc. Press, Nov.
5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most egregious example of this fraud was
perpetrated by a 10-year Navy sergeant who secured $66 million
in security contracts from the military based upon fictitious
combat experience in Panama and Somalia and fabricated Silver
Stars, Purple Hearts, Bronze Stars and Air Medals. Upon
learning of the man's non-existent combat record, the military
revoked the contracts but by then the sergeant had fled the
United States for Australia.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Ross, Marine With Phony Record Dupes Pentagon, ABC News, July 7,
2004, available at http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/
story?id=131753&page=1#.UBbMdqC8heg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen
Valor Act as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the Act as
a law that ``targets falsity and nothing more.''\5\ The simple
act of lying--even about receipt of a military decoration--is,
by itself, protected speech. ``The Court has never endorsed the
categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements
receive no First Amendment protection.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2537, Slip Op.
11-210 at 7 (June 28, 2012).
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather, ``content-based restrictions on speech have been
permitted, as a general matter, only when confined to the few
`historic and traditional categories [of expression] long
familiar to the bar.'''\7\ These include speech intended--and
likely--to incite violence, obscenity, defamation, speech
integral to criminal conduct, so-called ``fighting words,''
child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting a
grave and imminent threat the government has the authority to
prevent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Id. at 5.
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court acknowledged a legitimate government objective in
honoring valor by our military men and women. ``It is right and
proper that Congress, over a century ago, established an award
so the Nation can hold in its highest respect and esteem those
who, in the course of carrying out the `supreme and noble duty
of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor o the
nation,' have acted with extraordinary honor. And it should be
uncontested that this is a legitimate Government objective,
indeed a most valued national aspiration and purpose.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Id. at 2-3 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the ``Government's interest in protecting the
integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question . . .
``[t]here must be a direct causal link between the restriction
imposed and injury to be prevented.''\10\ And harm to the
status of a military decoration or to its true recipients is
not sufficient to overcome the deference afforded protected
speech under the First Amendment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. at 13.
\11\Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court does describe, however, instances in which a
false claim of military honors would extend beyond the
protections of the First Amendment. ``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.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his concurrence, Justice Breyer builds upon the concept
hinted at by the majority that false claims made in furtherance
of fraud would be unprotected and, therefore, appropriately
subject to government restriction. Justice Breyer identified
several modifications to narrow the application of the Act,
including: (1) require knowledge of falsity, (2) identify those
medals Congress is most interested in protecting, and (3) limit
the statute to those lies most likely to cause harm.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Alvarez, 567 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2537, Slip Op. 11-210, Breyer,
J. concurring opinion at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 258 rewrites subsection (b) of section 704 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.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Black's Law Dictionary 267 (6th ed. 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amendment adds an additional element of specific
intent, namely that the fraud was committed for the purpose of
obtaining 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.\15\ The amendment limits the
application of the 1-year penalty to false claims involving the
Medal of Honor and those military decorations and medals listed
in the statute, such as the Navy Cross, Silver Star and Purple
Heart. The amendment adds ``combat badges'' to the list of
decorations and medals protected under the Stolen Valor Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Alvarez, 567 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2537, Slip Op. 11-210 at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During oral argument, Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg
challenged the statute's prohibition on the unauthorized
wearing of a military medal. If one wears a military medal--
even if he or she is not the recipient of such medal--is it any
less expressive speech and any less protected than a false
claim? Although the Court does not affirmatively address this
issue in its ruling, it's clear from the argument that this
type of expressive conduct is very likely to enjoy First
Amendment protection. The amendment, therefore, strikes
``wears'' from subsection (a) of section 704. It does so with
the confidence that the act of fraudulently wearing a military
medal to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit will
continue to be prohibited under the revised subsection (b).
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
258.
Committee Consideration
On March 14, 2013, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 258 favorably reported without amendment,
by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 258.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 258, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 258, the ``Stolen
Valor Act of 2013.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 258--Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary
on March 14, 2013.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 258 would have no
significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill
could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any
effects would be insignificant for each year.
H.R. 258 would make changes to the current Federal offenses
relating to fraudulent claims about military service. As a
result, the government might be able to pursue cases that it
otherwise would not be able to prosecute. CBO expects that H.R.
258 would apply to a relatively small number of additional
offenders, however, so any increase in costs for law
enforcement, court proceedings, or prison operations would not
be significant. Any such costs would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 258 could
be subject to civil and criminal fines, the Federal Government
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.
Civil and criminal fines are recorded as revenues. Criminal
fines are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and later spent.
CBO expects that any additional revenues and direct spending
would not be significant because relatively few cases would
likely be affected.
H.R. 258 contains no intergovernmental mandates, as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect
the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. The bill
contains a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA by
prohibiting individuals from claiming to have received a
military medal or decoration with intent to obtain money,
property, or other tangible benefits. CBO estimates that the
cost of the mandate to such individuals would fall below the
annual threshold established in UMRA ($150 million in 2013,
adjusted annually for inflation).
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for Federal costs) and Elizabeth Bass (for the private-sector
impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 258 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
The Committee estimates that H.R. 258 specifically directs
to be completed no specific rule makings within the meaning of
5 U.S.C. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
258 remedies constitutional infirmities identified by the
Supreme Court in U.S. v. Alvarez and ensures the integrity of
certain decorations and medals awarded to military heroes by
preserving a criminal prohibition for misrepresentation of the
receipt of such decorations and medals in furtherance of a
fraud.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 258 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title.
This section cites the short title of the Act as the
``Stolen Valor Act of 2013.''
Section 2. Fraudulent Representations about Receipt of Military
Decorations or Medals.
This section amends subsection (b) of 704 to rewrite the
provision to prohibit fraudulently holding oneself out to be a
recipient of certain military decorations or medals with the
intent to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit.
This section limits the application of this penalty to
fraudulent claims related to only the Congressional Medal of
Honor (as that term is defined in subsection (c) of 704) and
those decorations or medals listed in subsection (d) of 704.
This section amends subsection (a) of 704 to remove the
term ``wears'' and amends subsection (d) of 704 to add ``combat
badges'' and a definition of such term to the list of
decorations and medals.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 33--EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 704. Military medals or decorations
(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly [wears,] purchases,
attempts to purchase, solicits for purchase, mails, ships,
imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for,
manufactures, sells, attempts to sell, advertises for sale,
trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value any
decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces
of the United States, or any of the service medals or badges
awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button,
or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal, or any
colorable imitation thereof, except when authorized under
regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
[(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or
Medals.--Whoever falsely represents himself or herself,
verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or
medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United
States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the
members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any
such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of
such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than six months, or both.]
(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.
(c) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Congressional
Medal of Honor.--
(1) In general.--If a decoration or medal involved
in an offense under subsection (a) [or (b)] is a
Congressional Medal of Honor, in lieu of the punishment
provided in that subsection, the offender shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(2) Congressional Medal of Honor defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``Congressional Medal of Honor''
means--
(A) a medal of honor awarded under section
3741, 6241, or 8741 of title 10 or section 491
of title 14;
(B) a duplicate medal of honor issued under
section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title 10 or
section 504 of title 14; or
(C) a replacement of a medal of honor
provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of
title 10 or section 501 of title 14.
(d) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other
Medals.--[If a decoration]
(1) In general.--If a decoration or medal involved
in an offense described in subsection (a) [or (b)] is a
distinguished-service cross awarded under section 3742
of title 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of
title 10, an Air Force cross awarded under section 8742
of section 10, a silver star awarded under section
3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, a Purple Heart awarded
under section 1129 of title 10, a combat badge, or any
replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as
authorized by law, in lieu of the punishment provided
in the applicable subsection, the offender shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1
year, or both.
(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.
* * * * * * *