H. Con.
Res. 79 authorizes the use of the United States Capitol rotunda for the lying in state of six named Air Force service members: Major John A. Klinner, Captain Ariana G.
Savino, Captain Seth R. Koval, Captain Curtis J.
Angst, Technical Sergeant Ashley B. Pruitt, and Technical Sergeant Tyler H.
Simmons. The resolution directs that the date be set by the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House and instructs the Architect of the Capitol to take all necessary steps, under their direction, to carry out the ceremony.
This is a ceremonial, non‑appropriating congressional action that creates a short, clear chain of responsibility: congressional leaders determine timing and the Architect handles logistics. For Capitol operations, security planners, and military liaison offices, the resolution triggers scheduling, coordination, and implementation tasks without specifying funding or operational details in the text itself — those practical matters flow from the authorization rather than from the resolution’s language.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution authorizes the rotunda to be used for a lying in state for six specified Air Force members. It vests determination of the date in the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House and directs the Architect of the Capitol to take necessary steps under their direction.
Who It Affects
Immediate stakeholders include the families of the deceased, the Department of the Air Force and military representatives handling honors, the Architect of the Capitol and Capitol Police, and House and Senate leadership staff who will schedule and oversee the event. Public visitors and veterans’ organizations will also be affected by access and security arrangements on the designated day.
Why It Matters
Authorizations to use the rotunda are rare and carry significant ceremonial weight; they also impose concrete operational responsibilities on Capitol offices. Because the resolution does not appropriate funds, it creates an obligation to organize the event without spelling out who will pay or the detailed operational plan, so implementation depends on interoffice coordination and discretionary resource allocation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Con.
Res. 79 names six Air Force service members and expressly permits their remains to lie in state in the Capitol rotunda. The text limits itself to authorization: it does not prescribe ceremonial minutiae or timetable details, but it does create the formal congressional permission needed to host such an event in the rotunda.
Decisionmaking authority over timing is assigned jointly to the two chamber leaders: the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. That delegation means scheduling is a leadership function; rank‑and‑file Members, committees, or external organizations do not have a statutory role in fixing the date under this resolution.Implementation responsibilities fall to the Architect of the Capitol, who is directed to take "all necessary steps" under the leaders’ direction.
In practice that phrase empowers the Architect to coordinate logistics — from staging and access routes to visitor flow and physical setup — subject to security and leadership direction, though the resolution does not enumerate specific tasks or standards.Because the measure is a concurrent resolution, it operates as a congressional authorization for ceremonial use of the rotunda rather than as a statute that spends money or creates new legal entitlements. The practical consequences — security posture, staffing, visitor management, and any incidental expenses — will be resolved through interagency and congressional office arrangements that follow from this authorization rather than through provisions contained in the resolution itself.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution names six Air Force personnel — Major John A. Klinner; Captains Ariana G. Savino, Seth R. Koval, and Curtis J. Angst; Technical Sergeants Ashley B. Pruitt and Tyler H. Simmons — as eligible to lie in state in the Capitol rotunda.
It specifically references the individuals’ service "in support of Operation Epic Fury," tying the ceremonial authorization to that operation.
The President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House jointly determine the date for the lying in state; the text vests scheduling authority solely in those two officers.
The Architect of the Capitol is directed to take "all necessary steps" to accomplish the lying in state, but the resolution leaves the content and scope of those steps unspecified and subject to the leaders’ direction.
H. Con. Res. 79 is a concurrent resolution — it authorizes the ceremonial use of the rotunda and requires resolution by both chambers for effect, but it does not itself appropriate funds or create a statutory entitlement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Recognition of service
The opening lines identify the six named Air Force members and record that they "served with distinction in support of Operation Epic Fury." This preambulatory language provides the resolution’s justification for the honor and establishes the connection between their service and the congressional recognition being requested.
Authorization to use the rotunda
This operative clause grants permission for the rotunda of the Capitol to be used for the lying in state of the named servicemembers. The authorization is limited to the specific individuals listed; it does not create a standing rule for future cases or expand general rotunda use authorities beyond this instance.
Date determination by congressional leaders
The resolution entrusts the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House with setting the date. That concentrates scheduling authority at the leadership level, which carries practical implications for calendar management, inter‑chamber coordination, and prioritization relative to other congressional or Capitol events.
Implementation responsibility assigned to the Architect of the Capitol
Under the leaders’ direction, the Architect is ordered to take "all necessary steps" to accomplish the lying in state. The language creates a flexible implementation mandate: the Architect will handle practical arrangements, but the resolution does not specify logistics, duration, security protocols, or funding sources, leaving those operational decisions to be worked out administratively.
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
- Families of the deceased — The resolution provides formal congressional recognition and a public forum for mourning, which fulfills longstanding ceremonial expectations for families of fallen service members.
- Department of the Air Force and unit colleagues — The public honoring in the Capitol elevates unit morale and acknowledges service at a national level, which supports institutional recognition and commemoration practices.
- Veterans’ and military support organizations — The ceremony offers a focal point for collective remembrance and public engagement, enabling organizations to coordinate tributes and outreach.
- Members of Congress and the institution of Congress — Hosting a lying in state allows congressional leaders to exercise ceremonial responsibilities and reinforces the Capitol’s role as a national locus for honorific events.
Who Bears the Cost
- Architect of the Capitol — The agency must plan and execute logistics, staging, and building operations for the event, absorbing staff time and operational burdens to implement the directive.
- Capitol Police and security partners — Security planning and staffing for public access to the rotunda will require resource deployment and coordination across law enforcement and federal partners.
- House and Senate leadership offices — Leaders must schedule the event, coordinate inter‑chamber logistics, and marshal staff time to manage the ceremony and communications.
- Taxpayers and discretionary budgets — While the resolution does not appropriate money, the event’s incidental costs (overtime, materials, temporary staffing) will be met through existing budgets or ad hoc allocations, creating an unfunded operational impact.
- Other scheduled events and committee work — Using the rotunda and associated security posture may force rescheduling or reallocation of Capitol space and staff, creating opportunity costs for other programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between honoring fallen service members with a nationally significant, public ceremony and the practical burdens that such honors impose: concentrated leadership control, unclear funding responsibility, and operational complexity within a highly secured, schedule‑constrained public building—choices that preserve dignity but demand resources and set precedents for future ceremonial authorizations.
The resolution’s brevity leaves several implementation questions open. It authorizes the ceremonial use of the rotunda and assigns roles, but it does not allocate funds or detail timelines, access protocols, or the duration of the lying in state.
Those elements will require negotiation among the Architect of the Capitol, Capitol Police, House and Senate leadership, and military representatives; the absence of statutory budget authority means agencies must absorb costs within existing appropriations or seek separate funding.
The phrase "all necessary steps," while flexible, creates potential ambiguity about the scope of the Architect’s responsibilities and the degree of oversight leaders will exercise. Operational decisions — from visitor capacity to the handling of media, interment transportation logistics, and commemorative programming — could generate disputes over authority, cost allocation, or acceptable levels of public access.
Additionally, because the resolution is limited to the named individuals and references a specific operation, it implicitly raises questions about how similar requests will be handled in the future and what criteria will guide congressional discretion for rotunda honors.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.