[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Page S2266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOLEN VALOR ACT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to comment today on the
Stolen Valor Act of 2005 that was signed into law by President Bush on
December 20, 2006. I am extremely proud of authoring the Senate version
of this legislation that ultimately became law. The new law that has
resulted from the Stolen Valor Act strengthens and expands the
protections for our Armed Forces military service awards and
decorations.
Since the Stolen Valor Act was signed into law, there have been
reports of concerns raised by medal collectors, historians, museums,
family members that inherit medals, and persons legitimately
possessing, shipping, or selling military service awards and
decorations. I would like to make it clear for the Record that the
intent and effect of my legislation and the resulting law is only to
provide the tools law enforcement need to prosecute those fraudulently
using military service awards they did not earn through service to our
Armed Forces. It does not in any way restrict legitimate possession,
use, shipment, or display of these awards and decorations.
Before the law was enacted, my legislation was reviewed by the Senate
Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the Department of
Justice, and the Congressional Research Service's American Law
Division. All concluded that the Stolen Valor legislation does not
negatively impact those legitimately in possession of military service
awards and decorations.
Although the new law modifies title 18 USC, section 704, it does not
impact the legitimate purchase, sale, or possession of medals. The key
part of this passage is the phrase, ``except when authorized under
regulations made pursuant to law.'' That exception refers to 32 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), section 507. I believe the concerns raised
by collectors and dealers of military medals and memorabilia may stem
from lack of familiarity with the CFR and its relationship to statutory
law. The CFR is the regulation that implements and administers
statutory provisions, in this case, the provisions of 18 USC section
704 as amended by the Stolen Valor Act.
The CFR specifically states in section 507.12(b), ``Mere possession
by a person of any of the articles prescribed in Sec. 507.8 of this
part is authorized provided that such possession is not used to defraud
or misrepresent the identification or status of the individuals
concerned.'' According to numerous legal experts consulted on the
drafting of the Stolen Valor legislation, ``mere possession'' would
include family members who inherit medals, museums, collectors,
approved medals dealers, historians, and other persons in possession or
selling medals that do not use them for fraudulent purposes. In
addition, CFR Sec. 507.8(a) indicates, ``the articles listed in
paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this section are authorized for
manufacture and sale when made in accordance with approved
specifications, purchase descriptions or drawings.''
The articles listed as authorized for manufacture and sale in Sec.
507.8(a) include decorations, service medals, ribbons, lapel buttons,
and badges with the exception of the Medal of Honor. The CFR allows for
the sale of all U.S. medals, except the Medal of Honor, and insignia,
provided that an official government manufacturer has made them and
that the Institute of Heraldry, IOH, approved those pieces. Thus, the
Stolen Valor Act does not in any way stop collectors or dealers from
selling or collecting officially made medals and insignia, whether they
were made yesterday or 50 years ago.
In closing, I again want to assure those legitimately in possession
of selling, displaying, or shipping military service awards that the
Stolen Valor Act is only directed at those who fraudulently use
military service awards and decorations. I have been to Walter Reed
Hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital, and have awarded numerous awards and
decorations to soldiers and veterans. These brave men and women have
given so much to ensure our freedoms. I strongly believe protecting the
meaning and valor of military service awards is a very important way we
can continue to honor their service and sacrifice.
I ask unanimous consent that a memo from the American Law Division at
Congressional Research Service supporting this analysis be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, September 21, 2006.
To: Hon. Kent Conrad; Attention: Shawn Ferguson.
From: John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, American Law
Division.
Subject: The Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
This memorandum is furnished in response to your request
for a review of the impact of enactment of the Stolen Valor
Act of 2005 upon collectors of military service medals who
are currently acting in compliance with federal regulations.
The Bill would amend the federal criminal code expand the
prohibition against wearing, manufacturing, or selling
military decorations or medals without legal authorization to
prohibit purchasing, soliciting. mailing, shipping,
importing, exporting, producing blank certificates of receipt
for, advertising, trading, bartering, or exchanging such
decorations or medals without authorization. It would
prohibit falsely representing oneself as having been awarded
any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed
Forces or any of the service medals or badges. The penalties
for violations, if the offense involves a distinguished
service cross, an Air Force Cross, a Navy Cross, a silver
star, or a Purple Heart, would be increased.
The current provision of title 18 states:
``Sec. 704. Military medals or decorations
``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures,
or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for
the aimed 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.''
The Bill would not affect the exception for acts authorized
by regulation. Therefore, it appears accurate to conclude
that if the action of the collector was authorized by
regulation, the enactment of the Bill would not affect that
authorization.
We hope this information is responsive to your request. If
we may be of further assistance, please call.
John R. Luckey,
Legislative Attorney.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to comment today on the
Stolen Valor Act of 2005 that was signed into law by President Bush on
December 20, 2006. I am extremely proud of authoring the Senate version
of this legislation that ultimately became law. The new law that has
resulted from the Stolen Valor Act strengthens and expands the
protections for our Armed Forces military service awards and
decorations.
Since the Stolen Valor Act was signed into law, there have been
reports of concerns raised by medal collectors, historians, museums,
family members that inherit medals, and persons legitimately
possessing, shipping, or selling military service awards and
decorations. I would like to make it clear for the Record that the
intent and effect of my legislation and the resulting law is only to
provide the tools law enforcement need to prosecute those fraudulently
using military service awards they did not earn through service to our
Armed Forces. It does not in any way restrict legitimate possession,
use, shipment, or display of these awards and decorations.
Before the law was enacted, my legislation was reviewed by the Senate
Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the Department of
Justice, and the Congressional Research Service's American Law
Division. All concluded that the Stolen Valor legislation does not
negatively impact those legitimately in possession of military service
awards and decorations.
Although the new law modifies title 18 USC, section 704, it does not
impact the legitimate purchase, sale, or possession of medals. The key
part of this passage is the phrase, ``except when authorized under
regulations made pursuant to law.'' That exception refers to 32 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), section 507. I believe the concerns raised
by collectors and dealers of military medals and memorabilia may stem
from lack of familiarity with the CFR and its relationship to statutory
law. The CFR is the regulation that implements and administers
statutory provisions, in this case, the provisions of 18 USC section
704 as amended by the Stolen Valor Act.
The CFR specifically states in section 507.12(b), ``Mere possession
by a person of any of the articles prescribed in Sec. 507.8 of this
part is authorized provided that such possession is not used to defraud
or misrepresent the identification or status of the individuals
concerned.'' According to numerous legal experts consulted on the
drafting of the Stolen Valor legislation, ``mere possession'' would
include family members who inherit medals, museums, collectors,
approved medals dealers, historians, and other persons in possession or
selling medals that do not use them for fraudulent purposes. In
addition, CFR Sec. 507.8(a) indicates, ``the articles listed in
paragraphs (a) (1) through (10) of this section are authorized for
manufacture and sale when made in accordance with approved
specifications, purchase descriptions or drawings.''
The articles listed as authorized for manufacture and sale in Sec.
507.8(a) include decorations, service medals, ribbons, lapel buttons,
and badges with the exception of the Medal of Honor. The CFR allows for
the sale of all U.S. medals, except the Medal of Honor, and insignia,
provided that an official government manufacturer has made them and
that the Institute of Heraldry, IOH, approved those pieces. Thus, the
Stolen Valor Act does not in any way stop collectors or dealers from
selling or collecting officially made medals and insignia, whether they
were made yesterday or 50 years ago.
In closing, I again want to assure those legitimately in possession
of selling, displaying, or shipping military service awards that the
Stolen Valor Act is only directed at those who fraudulently use
military service awards and decorations. I have been to Walter Reed
Hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital, and have awarded numerous awards and
decorations to soldiers and veterans. These brave men and women have
given so much to ensure our freedoms. I strongly believe protecting the
meaning and valor of military service awards is a very important way we
can continue to honor their service and sacrifice.
I ask unanimous consent that a memo from the American Law Division at
Congressional Research Service supporting this analysis be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, September 21, 2006.
To: Hon. Kent Conrad; Attention: Shawn Ferguson.
From: John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney, American Law
Division.
Subject: The Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
This memorandum is furnished in response to your request
for a review of the impact of enactment of the Stolen Valor
Act of 2005 upon collectors of military service medals who
are currently acting in compliance with federal regulations.
The Bill would amend the federal criminal code expand the
prohibition against wearing, manufacturing, or selling
military decorations or medals without legal authorization to
prohibit purchasing, soliciting. mailing, shipping,
importing, exporting, producing blank certificates of receipt
for, advertising, trading, bartering, or exchanging such
decorations or medals without authorization. It would
prohibit falsely representing oneself as having been awarded
any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed
Forces or any of the service medals or badges. The penalties
for violations, if the offense involves a distinguished
service cross, an Air Force Cross, a Navy Cross, a silver
star, or a Purple Heart, would be increased.
The current provision of title 18 states:
``Sec. 704. Military medals or decorations
``(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly wears, manufactures,
or sells any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for
the aimed 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.''
The Bill would not affect the exception for acts authorized
by regulation. Therefore, it appears accurate to conclude
that if the action of the collector was authorized by
regulation, the enactment of the Bill would not affect that
authorization.
We hope this information is responsive to your request. If
we may be of further assistance, please call.
John R. Luckey,
Legislative Attorney.