September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5793 

year-old veteran who retired from the 

Navy as a lieutenant commander, was 

killed on that day. Bailiff Harry Dalton, a 53-year-old father of six, was 

shot in the face and left paralyzed from 

the shooting. He died 7 years later. 

Correctional Officer Mark Parker was 

only 19 years old at the time of the 

shooting. He survived the shooting but 

was paralyzed from the shoulders down 

and had to spend the rest of his life 

confined to a wheelchair. 

I introduced the Local Courthouse 

Safety Act because the things this bill 

does are important to me and to most 

Americans. I know the families of Bailiff Dalton and Bailiff Wilkerson, who 

lost their lives as a result of the violence that day in the Orange County 

Courthouse, and remained friends with 

Officer Parker until he passed away a 

few years ago. I am deeply aware of the 

grief they’ve had to live with all of 

these years. 

Since September of 2010, there has 

been about one shooting per month at 

a local courthouse. So even though the 

shooting in Orange County happened 30 

years ago, courthouse shootings are 

still happening all over this country 

and innocent people are still dying. 

Those who are exercising their constitutional right of seeking justice in 

our courtrooms should not have to fear 

for their safety, and neither should our 

law enforcement officers, judges, advocates, and court personnel. It is my 

hope that this bill will help to prevent 

horrific and senseless incidents of violence like this from happening in our 

local courthouses. 

I want to thank my colleagues on the 

Judiciary Committee for recognizing 

that we need to take courthouse security seriously and for joining me in 

this bipartisan effort to help prevent 

violence in local courthouses across 

this country. We need to give sheriffs 

and local courthouses access to the 

training, equipment, and resources 

they need to improve security, so I 

urge support for the bill. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 

6185, the Local Courthouse Safety Act. 

This measure will provide critical assistance to State and local governments to provide courthouse security. 

To begin with, many State and local 

courthouses face serious security challenges. Serious violence often occurs in 

these facilities, but many courthouses 

across the Nation still lack basic security protections such as metal detectors. H.R. 6185 responds to this critical 

problem by giving sheriffs, as well as 

State and local courthouses, access to 

training, equipment, and other resources to help them improve security. 

H.R. 6185 accomplishes these goals by 

making use of existing resources. This 

legislation requires the General Services Administration to make available 

to State and local courts—at no cost, 

except for shipping, handling, and 

maintenance—surplus security equipment that is used to detect weapons, 

such as metal detectors, wands, and 

baggage screening devices. To qualify 

to receive such security equipment, a 

State or local courthouse must have 

less security equipment than necessary 

to meet the security needs of that 

courthouse. Because these devices are 

surplus and not otherwise being utilized by any Federal agencies, it is a 

wise use of taxpayer money to allow 

this equipment to be put into service 

at the State and local level. 

Another important aspect of the bill 

is that it expands the scope of the 

grants awarded by the State Justice 

Institute to include the improvement 

of the safety and security of State and 

local courts. As a result, H.R. 6185 

strengthens the Institute’s current authority to award grants to support education, training, and technical assistance projects to improve the administration of justice in the State courts. 

This measure addresses, in a meaningful way, the serious security challenges 

that State and local courthouses face. 

Not surprisingly, H.R. 6185 enjoys a 

broad range of support, including the 

National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Association for Court Management, the Conference of Chief Justices, 

the Conference of State Court Administrators, American Judges Association, 

the National Court Reporters Association, and the Center for Judicial and 

Executive Security. 

I commend my colleague, the gentlelady from Florida (Mrs. ADAMS) for her 

work in developing the bill, and I urge 

my colleagues to support the legislation. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we 

have no further requests for time, and 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

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. 6185, as amended. 

The question was taken; and (twothirds being in the affirmative) the 

rules were suspended and the bill, as 

amended, was passed. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

f 

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. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5794 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

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. 

b 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 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

f 

TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946 AMENDMENT RELATING TO REMEDIES 

FOR DILUTION 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6215) to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to correct an error in 

the provisions relating to remedies for 

dilution, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6215 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REMEDIES FOR DILUTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 43(c)(6) of the Act 

entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in 

commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other 

purposes’’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Trademark Act of 1946’’; 

15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(6)), is amended by striking 

subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘(A) is brought by another person under 

the common law or a statute of a State; and 

‘‘(B)(i) seeks to prevent dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment; or 

‘‘(ii) asserts any claim of actual or likely 

damage or harm to the distinctiveness or 

reputation of a mark, label, or form of advertisement.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by subsection (a) shall apply to any action commenced on or after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from North Carolina (Mr. WATT) 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. 6215, 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. I yield myself 

such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is 

to protect famous trademarks from 

uses that blur the distinctiveness of 

the trademark or tarnish or disparage 

it. Dilution does not rely upon the 

standard test of infringement, that is, 

likelihood of confusion, deception, or 

mistake. Rather, it applies when the 

unauthorized use of a famous trademark reduces the public’s perception 

that the trademark signifies something 

unique, singular, or particular. 

Dilution can result in the loss of the 

trademark’s distinctiveness and possibly the owner’s rights in it. 

Congress enacted amendments to the 

original dilution statute in 2006. Last 

year, two law professors discovered a 

technical problem with one of the 2006 

changes. 

During Senate consideration of the 

House bill, the section that provides a 

Federal registration defense to a dilution action was reorganized. This produced an unexpected and unintended 

change to the law. 

As originally drafted in the House, 

the provision was designed to encourage Federal registration of trademarks. 

This is a worthy policy goal that prevents State laws from interfering with 

federally protected trademarks and ensures that registered trademarks are 

protected nationwide. 

The House version promoted this 

goal and barred a State action for dilution against a federally registered 

trademark. However, the Senate reformatted the House text in such a way as 

to create a bar against State action for 

dilution as well as a State or Federal 

action based on a claim of actual or 

likely damage or harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. 

This means the Federal registration 

defense is available to both State sand 

Federal dilution claims. 

b 1530 

Congress did not intend such an outcome. If all dilution claims, including 

Federal claims, are barred by registration, it becomes difficult to cancel a diluting trademark that is registered. 

This encourages illegitimate trademark holders to register diluting 

trademarks, which forces legitimate 

trademark holders to expend greater 

resources to monitor registrations, as 

well as other trademarks being used in 

commerce. That is why I introduced 

H.R. 6215 to amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. 

This bill simply reformats the affected provision to clarify that Federal 

registration only constitutes a complete bar to a State claim based on dilution, or actual or likely damage or 

harm to the distinctiveness or reputation of a trademark. The change applies prospectively. 

This bill ensures that the trademark 

community is protected from those 

who seek to use this loophole as a way 

to disparage legitimate trademarks 

and cost their owners time and money. 

The only change to the bill, as reported, is a technical correction to a 

boilerplate reference regarding the 

date of enactment of the Trademark 

Act of 1946. The reported version inaccurately identifies the date of enactment as July 6, 1946. The correct date 

is July 5, 1946. 

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 

6214, and I reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 

6215, which is necessary to correct a 

technical error in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 that inadvertently allowed the registration of a Federal trademark to be a complete bar to 

Federal trademark dilution claims. 

The concept of dilution was initially 

a creature of State law. Massachusetts 

was the first State to enact a dilution 

statute in 1947. The purpose of the dilution law is to protect the value and 

uniqueness of the plaintiff’s trademark 

without requiring evidence about the 

likelihood of confusion. 

Over 50 years after the passage of the 

Massachusetts statute, the 1996 Federal 

Trademark Dilution Act provided nationwide injunctive relief ‘‘against a 

use that causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark.’’ In 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE