Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 2013
Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act - Authorizes the appropriate federal official (either the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Secretary of the Army) to reconsider a decision to inter or honor the memory of a person in the National Cemetery Administration or in Arlington National Cemetery upon receiving information that such person may have committed a federal or state capital crime but was not convicted by reason of unavailability for trial due to death or flight to avoid prosecution.
Requires the appropriate federal official, upon finding, after an opportunity for a hearing, that the person committed but was not convicted of such crime, to provide notice to the individual's next of kin or other authorized person. Allows such next of kin or other person 60 days to file a notice of disagreement, which shall be decided in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe. Authorizes the appropriate federal official, when a decision becomes final, to disinter the remains or remove the memorial headstone.
Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs: (1) to disinter the remains of Michael LaShawn Anderson from Fort Custer National Cemetery (Michigan); (2) to notify his next of kin of the impending disinterment; and (3) upon disinterment, to relinquish the remains to the next of kin or, if the next of kin of record in unavailable, arrange for the appropriate disposition of the remains.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3106 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3106 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3106 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3106 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.