Hill Heat

On Wednesday, January 14, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing on the following bills:

• H.R. 926 (Rep. Cohen), “Fort Pillow National Battlefield Park Study Act”
• H.R. 3922 (Rep. Neguse), “Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act”, to conduct a study on existing programs, rules, and authorities that enable or inhibit wildfire mitigation across land ownership boundaries on Federal and non-Federal land
• H.R. 4038 (Rep. Kim of Calif.), “Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025”
• H.R. 4684 (Rep. Kennedy of Utah), “Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025”
• H.R. 6300 (Rep. Hageman), “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025”

Hearing memo

Witnesses

Panel I (Members of Congress):

• To Be Announced

Panel II (Administration Witnesses)

• Gordon Blum, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Eastern Region, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. [H.R. 3922; H.R. 4038; H.R. 4684; H.R. 6300]

Panel III (Outside Experts)

• Tyler Clancy, Representative, Utah House of Representatives, Salt Lake City, UT [H.R. 4684]
• Pat Russell, Fire Chief, Anaheim Fire & Rescue, Anaheim, CA [H.R. 4038]
• Ty Checketts, President, Association of National Grasslands, Newcastle, WY [H.R. 6300]
• Matthew M. McCombs, State Forester & Director, Colorado State Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO [H.R. 3922] [Minority Witness]

H.R. 926 (Rep. Cohen), “Fort Pillow National Battlefield Park Study Act”

Located in Tennessee, Fort Pillow served as a strategically important supply depot for both the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War. Fort Pillow is also the site of one of the Civil War’s “most controversial” moments, when Confederate troops overran the Union garrison on April 12, 1864. Following the fall of Fort Pillow, Confederate troops killed a large number of Union soldiers, a significant majority of whom were African American, despite evidence that many of the latter had ceased resistance or attempted to surrender. Though the exact number of casualties remains a point of debate among historians, a disproportionate number of African American Union soldiers were massacred, with only 58 captured alive. The event, commonly referred to as the Fort Pillow Massacre, intensified Northern outrage against the Confederacy and inspired the battle cry of “Remember Fort Pillow” among African American Union soldiers for the remainder of the War.

Today, the State of Tennessee manages Fort Pillow as Fort Pillow Historic State Park. The site is also designated as a National Historic Landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. H.R. 926, the “Fort Pillow National Battlefield Park Study Act,” would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to evaluate Fort Pillow’s national historical significance and to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating the site as a unit of the National Park System. Special resource studies consider a site’s history as well as any practical management challenges that may arise if such a site is added to the National Park System. This legislation helps advance the interpretation of a crucial part of American history ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026, in line with President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14189, “Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday.”

H.R. 3922 (Rep. Neguse), “Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act”

Over the past 25 years, wildfires have grown in frequency, intensity, and cost. Wildfires do not respect political or jurisdictional boundaries, and often burn through a patchwork of federal, state, Tribal, local, and private lands governed by different agencies, rules, and programs. For example, the 2017 Carr Fire in California burned nearly 230,000 acres of federal and private land; in 2020, three major wildfires in Colorado burned more than 665,000 acres of federal and non-federal land; and the 2021 Dixie Fire in California burned more than 1 million acres of federal, state, and private land.

To minimize wildfire risk across all jurisdictions, cross-boundary collaboration and cooperation are essential. Tools such as Good Neighbor Authority have been highly successful in allowing states, tribes, and counties to conduct cross-boundary treatments that restore ecosystem health and reduce the likelihood and severity of catastrophic wildfires. However, more can be done to identify federal barriers to cross-boundary forest management, improve coordination with non-federal entities, and address federal fragmentation or duplication in cross-boundary wildfire mitigation efforts. H.R. 3922 addresses this gap by directing the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of wildfire mitigation efforts across federal and non-federal lands. GAO has already conducted similar studies in the past, releasing a report entitled “Wildland Fire Risk Reduction: Multiple Factors Affect Federal-Nonfederal Collaboration, but Action Could Be Taken to Better Measure Progress” in 2017. H.R. 3922 builds on this progress by requiring an examination of federal programs, rules, and authorities that either facilitate or hinder wildfire mitigation across jurisdictional and ownership boundaries. The study will assess whether policy changes to such programs could expand capacity for more active forest management. GAO must report its findings and recommendations from the study to the House Committee on Natural Resources and Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources within two years of the bill’s enactment.

By facilitating greater federal and local coordination on wildfire prevention, this legislation also directly advances the goals of President Trump’s EO 14308, “Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response.

H.R. 4038 (Rep. Kim), “Wildfire Response and Preparedness Act of 2025”

The Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) carry out wildfire response and management activities across their combined 593 million acres of land. When a wildfire occurs on federal land, DOI and USFS choose from a range of response activities, including immediate and aggressive measures to suppress a wildfire as well as less intense measures, such as monitoring while allowing the fire to burn (this is commonly referred to as “managing a fire for resource benefits”). The immediate response strategy (known as “initial attack”) is determined subjectively based on “risks to firefighter and public safety and welfare— and to natural, ecological, and cultural values to be protected.”

Aggressive initial attacks are a crucial step in effective wildland firefighting strategies and “can greatly reduce the likelihood of the fire becoming larger and causing substantial damage.” Just a 1.5-percent difference in the success rate of initial attacks equates to approximately 150 additional fires escaping containment, at a cost of $300 to $450 million. USFS currently boasts an initial attack success rate of 98 percent, meaning that a mere 2 percent of all fires in 2024 were responsible for the vast majority of the 8.9 million acres burned. However, USFS research has found that deploying firefighting resources to a wildfire within 30 to 60 minutes would reduce the number of escaped fires by 25 percent.

Federal agencies’ failure to conduct aggressive initial attacks can produce devastating consequences. In 2017, the Chetco Bar Fire in Oregon rapidly expanded from 8,500 acres to more than 90,000 acres as strong, hot winds overtook containment efforts. A 2020 report later found that USFS officials and stakeholders believed a more aggressive early response might have prevented such extensive spread. In 2021, the Caldor Fire in California grew to roughly 781 acres within 29 hours before exploding to over 55,000 acres in the next 44 hours. Critics noted that USFS pulled all crews off the fire just seven hours after ignition and later dismissed some CAL FIRE (California state wildfire-fighting agency) personnel, thereby weakening interagency coordination during critical early-phase suppression. Most recently, the Dragon Bravo Fire at Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona became 2025’s largest wildfire due to a delayed response strategy. Initially managed under a “confine and contain” strategy, the fire escalated rapidly under extreme weather conditions and ultimately burned more than 145,000 acres and destroyed more than 100 structures, including the historic Grand Canyon Lodge.

To ensure a clear, measurable metric for initial attacks, H.R. 4038 would direct the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, in coordination with the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), to establish a standard response time to any wildland fire on federal land. Specifically, this standard response time would require agencies to respond to a wildfire within 30 minutes and deploy fire suppression assets within three hours of an ignition. By setting a uniform metric across federal agencies, the bill seeks to improve accountability, speed interagency coordination, and secure the nationwide, year-round, and timely availability of federal firefighting resources.

The legislation’s encouragement of more aggressive initial attacks also directly advances the goals of President Trump’s EO 14308, “Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response.”

H.R. 4684 (Rep. Kennedy of UT), “Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025”

In 2000, Scoutmaster Robert Collins led his troop on a hike to Kyhv Peak, near Provo, Utah, and raised an American flag at its summit. Located in the Wasatch Mountain Range, Kyhv Peak is renowned for providing scenic views of Rock Canyon, the Utah Valley, and the City of Provo.

What began as an impromptu gesture by the scouts evolved into an annual tradition. Each year, Mr. Collins, joined by relatives, friends, and community members, would hike the summit in late May or early June to raise the American flag, then return before winter to lower it for the season.

In 2022, however, conflict arose when USFS personnel confronted Mr. Collins regarding the flag, citing agency policies that prohibit the construction or placement of any structures, including flagpoles, on National Forest System (NFS) lands without a permit. H.R. 4684 would resolve this impasse by requiring USFS to issue a special use permit for the placement and maintenance of a flagpole displaying the American flag at Kyhv Peak. Specifically, the bill directs USFS to issue a 10-year special use permit to Mr. Collins or a qualified individual, non-profit organization, or volunteer group based in Utah County, Utah, if Mr. Collins declines such a permit. The bill further mandates that USFS renew or reissue the permit every 10 years and prohibits the agency from charging land-use fees associated with the permit. Companion legislation, S. 2417, has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Curtis (R-UT) and Lee (R-UT).

H.R. 6300 (Rep. Hageman), “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025”

Across the country, USFS manages 193 million acres of land, including nearly 4 million acres of national grasslands. National grasslands are expressly defined by Congress as part of the NFS under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. USFS acquired these 20 national grasslands under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937, which also authorized grazing on these lands as part of the agency’s overall multiple-use and sustained yield mission.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) provides the statutory framework for federal grazing permits. FLPMA generally authorizes permits for 10-year terms, with renewal eligibility subject to continued compliance. USFS issues grazing permits under FLPMA that allow livestock producers to graze animals (mostly sheep and cattle) on designated NFS allotments, subject to compliance with federal law, land and resource management plans, and sitespecific operating instructions.42 However, Section 402(a) of FLPMA authorizes grazing permits on “lands within National Forests” without explicitly referencing the broader NFS. As a result, grazing permittees operating on national grasslands lack statutory clarity regarding permit renewal eligibility, unlike permittees grazing on other NFS lands. Representative Hageman’s (RWY-At Large) “Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025” removes this inconsistency by making a technical edit to conform FLPMA’s grazing eligibility language to Congress’s existing definition of the NFS.