September 11, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5791 

are not found within 24 hours of their 

departure from home. Wanderers often 

cannot remember who they are or 

where they live and cannot assist law 

enforcement officials and other first 

responders who try to help them. 

The Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program is a Department of 

Justice program that provides competitive grants to nonprofit organizations 

to assist in paying for the cost of planning, designing, establishing, and operating programs to protect and locate 

missing patients with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. These 

grants help local communities and public safety agencies quickly identify 

persons with Alzheimer’s disease who 

wander or who are missing and reunite 

them with their families. 

The program was originally authorized in 1996, but has been operating 

under an expired authorization since 

1998. H.R. 2800 reauthorizes the program and authorizations $1 million per 

year in appropriations for fiscal years 

2013 through 2017. This authorization 

level will allow the program to operate 

at the funding year 2012 funding level 

for the next 5 years. 

This program is extremely cost effective. An annual appropriation of simply $1 million would easily result in 

millions more in savings for the Federal Government by allowing more Alzheimer’s patients to remain at home 

with their families, thereby reducing 

nursing-home utilization and saving 

Medicare and Medicaid expenses. 

H.R. 2800 is cosponsored by 18 Members of Congress, including Congressman CHRIS SMITH and Congressman ED

MARKEY, the cochairs of the Bipartisan 

Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. The bill is also supported by both the Alzheimer’s Association and the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. 

This program saves law enforcement 

officials valuable time and allows them 

to focus on other security concerns. It 

also reduces unintentional injuries and 

deaths among Alzheimer’s patients, 

brings peace of mind to their families, 

and thus allows more patients to remain at home with people who love 

them. 

I urge my colleagues to support this 

bill, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I 

would like to thank Chairman LAMAR SMITH

and Ranking Member JOHN CONYERS for advancing this bill through the Judiciary Committee. And, I especially want to thank Congresswoman MAXINE WATERS for her commitment and hard work over the years in support 

of the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient 

Alert Program. 

Alzheimer’s disease robs millions of individuals in the U.S. of their ability to recognize 

once familiar places and faces or even to remember their names and addresses. 

Not everyone with Alzheimer’s wanders, but 

an estimated 60% wander at some point in the 

disease, and many of those wander repeatedly. They easily become disoriented and lost, 

even in their own neighborhood. While wandering is common, it also can be extremely 

dangerous, particularly for the unprotected and 

the mentally and physically vulnerable. If not 

found within 24 hours, up to half of those who 

wander risk serious injury or death. And their 

friends and familieis are beside themselves 

with worry. 

Since its inception in FY1996 and the 

awarding of a grant to the Alzheimer’s Association, the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program has been a literal life-line, 

helping in the safe return of many thousands 

of wanderers. 

The program has been funded every year 

since 1996 and funding has been used to establish a nationwide emergency response 

service for individuals with Alzheimer’s or another dementia who wander or have a medical 

emergency, including an identification and enrollment system. 

H.R. 2800 reauthorizes for five years this 

Department of Justice Program that provides 

grants to nonprofit organizations to operate 

programs designed to help local communities 

and law enforcement officials quickly identify 

wandering dementia patients and reunite them 

with their families. 

The program has a 98% success rate for 

safely returning program enrollees who were 

reported missing. The program also assists individuals with dementia who are not enrolled, 

with an 88% success rate. I encourage all of 

my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. 

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. 2800, 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 

LOCAL COURTHOUSE SAFETY ACT 

OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6185) to improve security at 

State and local courthouses, as amended. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6185 

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 ‘‘Local Courthouse Safety Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. SECURITY TRAINING. 

Part D of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

3741 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘SEC. 403. PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW 

ENFORCEMENT AND ENSURING OFFICER RESILIENCE AND SURVIVABILITY. 

‘‘The Director may carry out a training 

and technical assistance program designed to 

teach employees of State, local, and tribal 

law enforcement agencies how to anticipate, 

survive, and respond to violent encounters 

during the course of their duties, including 

duties relating to security at State, county, 

and tribal courthouses. If the Director offers 

a training program specifically designed to 

train participants on courthouse security 

issues, preference for admission into such 

program shall be given to employees of jurisdictions that have magnetometers available 

for use at their courthouses.’’. 

SEC. 3. STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE. 

The State Justice Institute Act of 1984 is 

amended— 

(1) in section 203(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 10702(b)(1)), 

in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by 

inserting ‘‘, safe,’’ after ‘‘a fair’’; and 

(2) in section 206 (42 U.S.C. 10705)— 

(A) in subsection (c)— 

(i) in paragraph (14)— 

(I) by inserting ‘‘to’’ before ‘‘conduct’’; and 

(II) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

(ii) by redesignating paragraph (15) as 

paragraph (16); and 

(iii) by inserting after paragraph (14) the 

following: 

‘‘(15) to improve the safety and security of 

State and local courts; and’’; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) MAGNETOMETERS.—In the case of a 

grant awarded under this section to be used 

as described in subsection (c)(15), if the State 

or local court applying for the grant does not 

have magnetometers available for use, not 

less than $300 nor more than $1,000 of the 

matching fund required under subsection (d) 

of the State or local court shall be used to 

acquire a magnetometer.’’. 

SEC. 4. SECURITY EQUIPMENT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter III of chapter 

5 of title 40, United States Code, is amended 

by adding after section 559 the following: 

‘‘§ 560. Surplus security equipment for State 

and local courts 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

‘‘(1) the term ‘surplus security equipment’ 

means surplus property that is used to detect weapons, including metal detectors, 

wands, and baggage screening devices; and 

‘‘(2) the term ‘qualifying State or local 

courthouse’ means a courthouse of a State or 

local government that has less security 

equipment than the security needs of the 

courthouse require. 

‘‘(b) DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS SECURITY EQUIPMENT.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this subchapter, the Administrator of General Services shall ensure 

that a qualifying State or local courthouse 

has an opportunity to request to receive surplus security equipment for use at the qualifying State or local courthouse before the 

surplus security equipment is made available 

to any other individual or entity under this 

subchapter. 

‘‘(2) DISPOSAL.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph 

(B), upon request by a qualifying State or 

local courthouse for surplus security equipment for use at the qualifying State or local 

courthouse, the surplus security equipment 

shall be made available to the qualifying 

State or local courthouse without cost, except for any costs of shipping, handling, and 

maintenance. 

‘‘(B) MULTIPLE REQUESTS.—If more than 1 

qualifying State or local courthouse requests 

a particular piece of surplus security equipment, the surplus security equipment shall 

be distributed based on need, as determined 

by the Administrator of General Services, 

with priority given to a qualifying State or 

local courthouse that has no security equipment.’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 5 of 

title 40, United States Code, is amended by 

inserting after the item relating to section 

559 the following: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5792 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 11, 2012 

‘‘560. Surplus security equipment for State 

and local courts.’’. 

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. 6185, 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, first of all, I would like 

to thank our Judiciary Committee colleague, Mrs. ADAMS of Florida, for her 

work on this issue to make America’s 

courthouses safer. This bipartisan, bicameral bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent 

last May. 

b 1510 

Before I yield to her, I do want to 

urge my colleagues to support this bill 

and thank Mrs. ADAMS again for all of 

her work that brought us to this point 

we are here today. 

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank my Judiciary 

Committee colleague, Mrs. ADAMS of Florida, 

for her work on this issue to make America’s 

courthouses safer. This bipartisan, bicameral 

bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by 

unanimous consent last May. 

State and local courthouses are the workplace for many people. Judges, secretaries, 

custodians, clerks and attorneys are there 

every workday. Police officers, litigants and 

the public go to these courthouses for many 

reasons. Many of us are called upon to report 

there for jury duty. 

Often in these courthouses, the stakes, and 

emotions, are high when defendants confront 

their accusers and victims confront there perpetrators. 

Threats against judges and acts of violence 

in courthouses and courtrooms are occurring 

throughout the country with greater frequency 

than ever before. The number of threats and 

violent incidents that target the judiciary has 

increased dramatically in recent years. 

At the federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service’s Center for Judicial Security reports the 

number of judicial threat investigations has 

more than doubled to over 1,200 in the past 

nine years. At the state and local levels, data 

collected by the Center for Judicial and Executive Security shows that the number of violent 

incidents in state courthouses has gone up 

every decade since 1970. 

Since 2010, there has been about one 

shooting per month at local courthouses 

across the country. In September 2011, for example a defendant opened fire in the Crawford 

County Courthouse in Arkansas, killing a 

judge’s secretary. 

In December 2011, a defendant retrieved a 

gun from his car, walked into the Cook County 

Courthouse in Minnesota and shot the prosecuting attorney, a witness and the bailiff. 

So far in 2012, there have been at least five 

courthouse shootings, including a fatal attack 

in my home State of Texas. 

Security at many local courthouses is lax, 

particularly in rural and suburban areas where 

access to equipment, training and resources is 

especially scarce. Law enforcement officers, 

court personnel and members of our communities are in harm’s way as a result. 

One Minnesota judge put it well in a recent 

correspondence to his colleagues: ‘‘I’m no 

longer willing to risk my life, the life of court 

staff, [and] the life of the public who have no 

choice about going to court.’’ 

This bill accomplishes three objectives. 

First, the bill gives State and local courthouses 

direct access to security equipment that the 

Federal Government no longer uses. 

This provision is modeled after a Defense 

Department program that allows the Pentagon 

to give its excess equipment to local police 

and firefighters. This legislation gives State 

and local authorities access to excess metal 

detectors, wands and baggage screening machines. 

Second, this bill gives States the flexibility 

they need to make courthouse security improvements, but requires modest matching 

funds. 

The bill does not require any new spending 

and it does not impose any new mandates. 

States can use existing federal resources for 

courthouse security upgrades if they so 

choose. 

Lastly, through existing programs and funding authorizations, training and technical assistance will be provided to local law enforcement officers to teach them how to anticipate 

and survive violent encounters. 

The identical Senate bill has broad bipartisan support and its ten co-sponsors come 

from both sides of the aisle. 

This bill has been endorsed by six organizations, including: the National Sheriffs Association, the National Association for Court Management, the Conference of Chief Justices, 

the Conference of State Court Administrators, 

the American Judges Association and the National Court Reporters Association. 

The Congressional Budget Office scored 

this bill at zero cost. 

This bill is a cost-effective approach to provide safety training and technical assistance to 

local law enforcement agencies. It improves 

security at State and local government courthouses, which are most in need of basic safety equipment and training. 

Our State and local law enforcement officers 

need support to ensure the security of our 

courthouses. This bill does that as it recycles 

excess Federal security equipment and protects Americans at the same time. 

I again thank Mrs. ADAMS for her work on 

this issue and I urge my colleagues to support 

this bipartisan, bicameral bill. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC, September 10, 2012. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: On August 1, 2012, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 6185, 

the ‘‘Local Courthouse Safety Act of 2012,’’ 

reported to the House. Thank you for consulting with the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform with regard to H.R. 

6185 on those matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction. I am writing to confirm 

our mutual understanding with respect to 

the consideration of H.R. 6185. 

In the interest of expediting the House’s 

consideration of H.R. 6185, I will forego consideration of the bill. However, I do so only 

with the understanding that this procedural 

route will not be construed to prejudice the 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform’s jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent 

for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 

interest to my Committee in the future. 

I respectfully request your support for the 

appointment of outside conferees from the 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform should this bill or a similar bill be 

considered in a conference with the Senate. I 

also request that you include our exchange 

of letters on this matter in the Committee 

Report on H.R. 6185 and in the Congressional 

Record during consideration of this bill on 

the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

DARRELL ISSA, 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, September 10, 2012. 

Hon. DARRELL ISSA, 

Rayburn House Office Building, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN ISSA: Thank you for your 

letter of even date herewith regarding H.R. 

6185, the ‘‘Local Courthouse Safety Act of 

2012,’’ which the Judiciary Committee reported favorably to the House, as amended, 

today. 

I am most appreciative of your decision to 

forego consideration of H.R. 6185, as amended, so that it may move expeditiously to the 

House floor. I acknowledge that although 

you are waiving formal consideration of the 

bill, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is in no way waiving its jurisdiction over the subject matter contained 

in the bill. In addition, if a conference is necessary on this legislation, I will support any 

request that your committee be represented 

therein. 

Finally, I shall be pleased to include your 

letter and this letter in the Congressional 

Record during floor consideration of H.R. 

6185. 

Sincerely, 

LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield such 

time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. ADAMS). 

Mrs. ADAMS. I rise today in support 

of H.R. 6185, the Local Courthouse 

Safety Act of 2012, because it will give 

local courthouses the resources to enhance their security, and to do so at no 

cost to the Federal taxpayer. My bill 

would allow for surplus metal detectors 

to be provided to local courthouses to 

enhance security. 

Like other regions throughout our 

Nation, central Florida has seen its 

share of courthouse attacks. Shortly 

before I joined the Orange County 

Sheriff’s Office as a deputy sheriff, a 

courthouse shooting occurred. An 

armed gunman by the name of Thomas 

Provenzano walked into the Orange 

County Courthouse with a 12-gauge 

shotgun, an assault rifle, and a .38 revolver, all loaded with live ammunition. Bailiff William Wilkerson, a 60- 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
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