[House Report 112-650]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-650
======================================================================
STOLEN VALOR ACT OF 2012
_______
September 10, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1775]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1775) to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish
a criminal offense relating to fraudulent claims about military
service, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendments................................................... 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Committee Votes.................................................. 5
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 5
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
The Amendments
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
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)''.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with
respect to fraudulent representations about having received
military decorations or medals.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1775 amends the Federal criminal code to 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 to expand the
existing prohibition against wearing, manufacturing, or selling
military decorations or medals without legal authorization. The
Act 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 Corps functions, military
funerals, and fund-raisers posing as a retired Marine Corps
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 Corps event who claimed to be a decorated officer. He
had previously been spotted at the annual Marine Corps 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most egregious example of this fraud was
perpetrated by a 10-year Marine Corps 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\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.''\4\ 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.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, Slip Op. 11-210 at 7
(June 28, 2012).
\5\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'''.\6\ 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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Id. at 5.
\7\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.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\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.''\9\ 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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Id. at 13.
\10\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.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his concurrence, Justice Breyer builds upon the concept
hinted to 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Alvarez, Slip Op. 11-210, Breyer, J. concurring opinion at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The substitute amendment adopted by the Committee during
markup 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.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\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.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Alvarez, 567 U.S. ___, 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
There were no hearings held on H.R. 1775.
Committee Consideration
On August 1, 2012, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 1775 to be reported favorably with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, 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 no
roll-call votes occurred during the Committee's consideration
of H.R. 1775.
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. 1775, 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, August 23, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith, 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. 1775, the ``Stolen
Valor Act of 2012.''
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. 1775--Stolen Valor Act of 2012.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary
on August 1, 2012.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1775 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. 1775 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. 1775 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. 1775
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 of the
relatively small number of cases likely to be affected.
H.R. 1775 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 new 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 ($146 million in 2012,
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 Peter H. Fontaine,
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
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.
1775 ensures the integrity of certain medals awarded to
military heroes by reinstating a penalty for misrepresenting
the receipt of those medals.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 1775 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 2012.''
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 italic, 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.
* * * * * * *
(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.
* * * * * * *