This bill amends 38 U.S.C. 2411 to create an explicit duty for the “appropriate Federal official” to take “every reasonable action, including by searching public records,” to confirm that a person scheduled for interment or memorialization in the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) or Arlington National Cemetery is not ineligible due to having committed a federal or state capital crime. It also revises the disinterment authority in the existing Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act to tie that authority to the amended subsection and to interments conducted on or after the act’s effective date.
Separately and concretely, the bill directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter the remains of George E. Siple from Indiantown Gap National Cemetery, notify his next‑of‑kin of the impending disinterment, and then relinquish the remains to the next‑of‑kin or arrange for appropriate disposition if they are unavailable.
The statute creates a new, affirmative verification duty for VA personnel and a narrowly targeted, mandatory remedy for one enumerated burial.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new subparagraph into 38 U.S.C. 2411(a)(2) requiring the appropriate Federal official to take every reasonable action—including searching public records—to verify eligibility before interment or memorialization. It also modifies the disinterment authority in the Alicia Dawn Koehl Act and orders the VA to disinter George E. Siple and turn his remains over to next‑of‑kin or arrange disposition.
Who It Affects
National Cemetery Administration staff, VA officials who authorize interments, Arlington National Cemetery administrators, funeral directors, and state and federal criminal records custodians. Families of those interred in national cemeteries and the next‑of‑kin of George E. Siple are directly affected.
Why It Matters
The bill converts what has often been an ad hoc eligibility check into a statutory duty with explicit investigative language, shifting operational responsibility onto VA officials and creating predictable legal authority to remove ineligible remains. It also establishes a concrete precedent for targeted disinterment directed by statute.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Current federal law bars interment or memorialization in national cemeteries for people who committed federal or state capital crimes, but enforcement has at times been uneven. This bill places a proactive verification duty on the “appropriate Federal official” within the VA: before any interment or memorialization, that official must take every reasonable step—explicitly including searches of public records—to determine whether the individual is ineligible under the capital‑crime prohibition.
The bill also tightens the statutory language that governs the VA’s power to disinter remains. It revises the Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act to reference the amended subsection of 38 U.S.C. 2411 and to state that the disinterment authority applies with respect to interments performed on or after the amendments take effect.
That language focuses the statute’s disinterment reach on post‑enactment interments tied to the clarified screening duty.Finally, the bill contains a targeted directive: the Secretary of Veterans Affairs must disinter George E. Siple from Indiantown Gap National Cemetery, notify his next‑of‑kin of the planned action, and upon disinterment either relinquish the remains to the next‑of‑kin of record or arrange an appropriate disposition if the next‑of‑kin are unavailable.
The statutory instruction sets procedural minima—notice and transfer or disposition—but leaves many operational details to VA practice and implementing guidance.Taken together, the bill converts an inconsistency in routine pre‑burial checks into an affirmative statutory responsibility for VA personnel and provides a narrow, enumerated remedy in one identified case. The text does not define key phrases like “appropriate Federal official” or “every reasonable action,” nor does it spell out timelines, funding, or which agency must pay for searches or disinterment, leaving those implementation choices to the VA and potential rulemaking or guidance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 38 U.S.C. 2411(a)(2) to add a subparagraph requiring the appropriate Federal official to take “every reasonable action, including by searching public records,” to confirm burial eligibility before interment or memorialization.
It amends section 2(c) of the Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act to reference the amended subsection (a) and clarifies that the disinterment authority applies to interments conducted on or after the date the amended 38 U.S.C. 2411 takes effect.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs must disinter the remains of George E. Siple from Indiantown Gap National Cemetery.
The VA must notify Siple’s next‑of‑kin of the impending disinterment and, after disinterment, either relinquish the remains to the next‑of‑kin of record or arrange an appropriate disposition if the next‑of‑kin is unavailable.
Key operational terms—“appropriate Federal official,” the scope of “every reasonable action,” timelines, and who bears costs—are left undefined, giving the VA broad implementation discretion and opening potential administrative and legal questions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the “Bertie’s Respect for National Cemeteries Act.” This is purely nominative but signals the bill’s dual character: a general policy change plus a named, case‑specific directive.
Amendment to 38 U.S.C. 2411(a)(2) — affirmative verification duty
This provision inserts a new subparagraph (B) into 2411(a)(2) that requires the appropriate Federal official to take every reasonable action, explicitly including searches of public records, to ensure a person scheduled for interment or memorialization is not barred by the capital‑crime prohibition. Practically, that creates an affirmative, documentable duty for VA staff to implement screening steps before granting burial authorization, which could require new procedures, record‑search protocols, and coordination with state criminal record repositories.
Technical change to Alicia Dawn Koehl disinterment authority
The bill modifies the existing Alicia Dawn Koehl Respect for National Cemeteries Act by replacing the phrase “this section” with “subsection (a)” and adding text that ties the disinterment authority to interments conducted on or after the effective date of the amended 2411. Functionally, this narrows the statutory reference and signals that the disinterment remedy is aimed at correcting future (post‑enactment) interments that slipped by due to inconsistent screening practices rather than broadly reopening all historic burials.
Mandatory disinterment and next‑of‑kin procedures for George E. Siple
This section directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to disinter George E. Siple, notify his next‑of‑kin of record in advance, and upon disinterment either relinquish the remains to the next‑of‑kin or arrange for an appropriate disposition if no next‑of‑kin is available. The directive imposes concrete procedural duties on the VA for one named individual but leaves operational specifics—scheduling, cost responsibility, funeral rites, and what constitutes an “appropriate disposition”—to the department to execute.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Veterans across all five countries.
Explore Veterans in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Immediate families of veterans buried in NCA and Arlington who want consistent enforcement of eligibility rules — the bill promises clearer screening processes to prevent ineligible interments.
- Victims’ families and criminal‑justice advocates seeking that individuals convicted of capital crimes not be memorialized on federal military cemeteries — the bill gives statutory backing to that policy preference.
- Federal and state criminal record custodians and prosecutors who will be able to rely on a statutory duty when supplying records or responding to VA queries, reducing ad hoc disputes over access.
Who Bears the Cost
- National Cemetery Administration and VA operations staff — they must develop and run verification processes, perform public‑record searches, and manage any resulting administrative appeals or litigation.
- Next‑of‑kin of George E. Siple and any families subject to future disinterments — they face the emotional, logistical, and potentially financial burden of disinterment and re‑interment or alternative disposition.
- State and local agencies that maintain criminal records or coroners’ files — they may receive a higher volume of records requests and may need to produce certified documentation on short notice, increasing administrative workload.
- Funeral directors and private cemetery operators who coordinate with the VA — they may need to delay services pending VA verification and could face liability or reputational risk if interments proceed before verification is complete.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a straightforward policy goal—preventing memorialization of people who committed capital crimes—by imposing an affirmative verification duty that protects cemetery sanctity, but it does so without defining key operational terms or funding the resulting administrative work; the central dilemma is between enforcing a moral/administrative standard and preserving fair, reliable, and resource‑constrained procedures for families and the agency tasked with carrying it out.
The bill substitutes statutory clarity for what has sometimes been informal practice, but it leaves crucial implementation details undefined. “Every reasonable action” and “appropriate Federal official” are not defined, so the VA will need to write implementing policies specifying which offices perform checks, what databases count as “public records,” what certification suffices, and how to document the verification. Those choices will determine cost, timeliness, and the risk of false positives or negatives.
The targeted disinterment order for George E. Siple also exposes tension between symbolic enforcement and procedural fairness.
The text requires notice and transfer or disposition but does not set timelines, allocate funds for exhumation and reburial, or describe appeals processes for families. That gap invites litigation over due process, chain of custody, and who pays.
There is also a risk of precedent: a statutory, name‑specific disinterment could encourage future Congresses to direct similar individual actions, which raises separation‑of‑powers and administrative‑precedent questions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.