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”
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.”
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.
On Wednesday, January 14, climate and affordable energy champions in Congress will gather to take stock of Trump’s broken promise to slash energy bills for Americans in half his first year in office. The press conference will highlight how this administration’s policies, including the Big Ugly Bill and many executive actions, have caused electric bills for American families and businesses to skyrocket. Speakers will also discuss how the Trump administration has worked hand-in-glove with big corporations to make polluting easier and cheaper, hurting the health of everyday Americans.
Members will deliver remarks and answer questions from media.
WHEN:
Wednesday, January 14, 2026 at 11:30 AM.
WHO:
U.S. Representative Sean Casten
U.S. Representative Mike Levin
U.S. Representative Rob Menendez
Trevor Higgins, Senior Vice President of the Energy and Environment, Center for American Progress
Additional Speakers TBA
WHERE:
House Triangle,
United States Capitol,
Washington, DC, 20515
House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition
Full committee hearing with the chief executives of U.S. automakers has been postponed. Ford executive Jim Farley objected that the CEOs of GM, Ford, and Stellantis were asked to testify but not Elon Musk, only a Tesla VP.
“Ford believes that it is essential that any potential hearing adhere to Congress’s longstanding tradition of ensuring comparable treatment for similarly situated companies. The proposed hearing breaks with this tradition by inviting witnesses of different seniorities across the four invited automakers.”
Witnesses:
Mary Barra, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, General Motors
Antonio Filosa, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Stellantis
Lars Moravy, Vice President of Vehicle Engineering, Tesla
Jim Farley, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ford Motor Company
The One Big Brutal Bill Act and the Trump regime have taken steps to effectively repeal Biden-era CAFE standards. This hearing will, in the words of the climate-science-denying Commerce Republicans, “examine how radical global warming regulations and mandated technologies have driven up the cost of vehicles for American consumers.”
Sen. Cruz statement:
“Americans have been clear that they are hyper-focused on affordability – and so is this committee. The average price of a car has more than doubled in the past decade, driven up by onerous government-mandated technologies and radical environmental regulations. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act took crucial steps to drive costs down with the repeal of the EV mandate and CAFE standards, but we must do more. This hearing will examine how government interference continues to make vehicles expensive and out of reach for American customers and how we can restore competition and choice.”
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
On Wednesday, January 7th, Renee Nicole Good was killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This killing is part of a broader pattern of unchecked violence, impunity, and abuse carried out by federal immigration enforcement agencies against members of our communities.
Following the ICE Out for Good weekend of action that saw nearly 1,200 protests against ICE nationwide, Senator Chris Murphy and Representative Maxwell Frost will headline a rally and vigil outside of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection headquarters on Tuesday, January 13 at 5pm to build momentum for reining in the abuses of President Trump’s reckless and violent immigration enforcement agencies and for kicking ICE out of Minnesota and our communities nationwide.
U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 14th NW between Pennsylvania and Constitution
$1 million in Small Business Administration funds for Eastie Farm in Boston, requested by Massachusetts Sens. Markey and Warren
$748K for West Virginia Food and Farm Coalition, requested by Sen. Capito
$700K for Farm Fresh Rhode Island, requested by Sen. Reed
$610K for North Coast Food Web, requested by Oregon Sens. Merkley and Wyden
$600K in Small Business Administration funds for the Pennsylvania fracking-AI-finance front group Catalyst Connection for Pennsylvania Al Data Centers & Energy Future, requested by Sens. Fetterman and McCormick
Division A - Financial Services and General Government
Division B - National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs
Division C - Prohibits funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
All of the new House riders on climate have been dropped, other than the section prohibiting the Consumer Product Safety Commission from promulgating rules to “ban gas stoves” (Sec. 502). D.C. Water and Sewer Authority is funded at the fiscal year 2025 level of $8 million, instead of the $6 million in the House version or the White House request of zero.
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries will hold an oversight hearing titled “Hunting and Fishing Access in the Great American Outdoors.”
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, will hold a legislative hearing on the following bill:
H.R. 5745 (Rep. Ezell), “Marine Fisheries Habitat Protection Act”, to promote fish habitat through the enhancement of certain offshore oil and gas platforms and pipelines as artificial reefs, and for other purposes. The legislation would transfer all responsibilities and liabilities to the state if a decommissioned oil and gas platform or pipeline is acquired as an artificial reef.
The Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 10:15
a.m. (ET) in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, “Protecting
America’s Energy Infrastructure in Today’s Cyber and Physical Threat Landscape.” The hearing
will review the following legislation:
H.R. ____, Energy Threat Analysis Center Act of 2026
Alex Fitzsimmons, Acting Undersecretary of Energy and Director of the Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, U.S. Department of Energy
Panel 2
Scott I. Aaronson, Senior Vice President, Energy Security and Industry Operations, Edison Electric Institute;
Adrienne Lotto, Senior Vice President of Grid Security, Technical and Operations Services, American Public Power Association;
Nathaniel J. Melby, Ph.D., Vice President and Chief Information Officer, Dairyland Power, on behalf of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Rebecca O’Neil, Research Principal, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Congress has provided the Department of Energy (DOE) with a range of emergency
response and cybersecurity authorities affecting multiple segments of the energy sector,
beginning with the Department of Energy Organization Act, and more recently with the Fixing
America’s Transportation Act (FAST Act). Enacted in 2015, the FAST Act designated DOE as
the Sector-Specific Agency, now termed Sector Risk Management Agency (SRMA), for
cybersecurity for the energy sector. The law also provided the Department with several
authorities to respond to threats to energy systems, including authority under the Federal Power
Act relating to grid security emergencies and critical defense electric infrastructure.
As the Energy SRMA, DOE coordinates with multiple Federal and State agencies and
collaborates with energy infrastructure owners and operators on activities associated with
identifying vulnerabilities and mitigating incidents that may impact the energy sector. To
perform these duties effectively, DOE must account for each interrelated segment of the nation’s
energy infrastructure, including pipelines, which are subject to an array of other Federal
authorities. In a January 24, 2018, letter, the Committee wrote to Secretary Perry to better
understand the level of coordination among governmental agencies. In response, Secretary
Perry noted that “a coordinated government approach to the cyber and physical security of
pipelines, led by the Department of Energy, is essential to ensuring the safe and reliable flow of
energy across the U.S.”
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) also has certain responsibilities
related to security for pipelines. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, which
established the Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation,
authorized the agency “to issue, rescind, and revise such regulations as are necessary” to carry
out its functions. TSA was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, created under
the Homeland Security Act of 2002.13 The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 directs TSA, in consultation with the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, to promulgate pipeline security regulations and carry out
necessary inspection and enforcement if the agency determines that regulations are appropriate.
The CEO-led Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) serves as the
principal liaison between the Federal government and the electric power sector in coordinating
efforts to prepare for national-level incidents or threats to critical infrastructure. The
Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program (CRISP) is a public-private partnership, funded
by DOE and industry. CRISP is managed by the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis
Center (E-ISAC) and facilitates the timely bi-directional sharing of unclassified and classified
threat information with energy sector partners. The E-ISAC, which works with DOE and the
ESCC, is run by NERC and is operationally isolated from NERC’s enforcement processes.
Several cybersecurity initiatives have been enacted in recent years. The Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted several cybersecurity provisions, including the
Enhancing Grid Security through Public-Private Partnerships Act and the Cyber Sense Act
developed by Energy and Commerce Members. The IIJA provisions also authorized a program
that developed the Energy Threat Analysis Center (ETAC), a public-private partnership pilot that
convenes government and industry experts to analyze and advise on emerging threats, and the Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced Cybersecurity (RMUC) Grant and Technical Assistance
Program, to advance cybersecurity at electric cooperatives, non-profit municipal, and small
investor-owned utilities, both of which are addressed in the legislation under consideration.
H.R. ____, Energy Threat Analysis Center Act of 2026
This legislation would reauthorize the DOE program authorized in section 40125(c) of
the IIJA,20 which established an Energy Threat Analysis Center. The legislation would
reauthorize the program through 2031. In addition, the legislation provides clarifying language
for carrying out the program, relating to collaboration and intelligence sharing between the
Federal government and the energy sector to strengthen collective defense, response, and
resilience.
H.R. ____, Energy Emergency Leadership Act
This legislation would amend the Department of Energy Organization Act21 to include
energy emergency and energy security among the functions that the Secretary of Energy shall
assign to an Assistant Secretary. The legislation provides that the functions assigned to an
Assistant Secretary under this amendment would include responsibilities with respect to energy
infrastructure, security and resilience, emerging threats, cybersecurity, supply and emergency
planning, coordination, response, and restoration and would include the provision of technical
assistance, support, and response capabilities with respect to energy security threats, risks, and
incidents to State, local, and Tribal governments and the energy sector. The legislation provides
that the Secretary of Energy shall ensure the functions under this amendment are performed in
coordination with relevant Federal agencies. (Substantially similar legislation passed the House
in the 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses.)
H.R. ___, Rural and Municipal Utility Cybersecurity Act
This legislation would reauthorize the Rural and Municipal Utility Advanced
Cybersecurity (RMUC) Grant and Technical Assistance Program, authorized in section 40124 of
the IIJA, through October 31, 2030. The program provides technical and financial assistance to
eligible entities, which include rural electric cooperatives, municipally owned utilities, and small
investor-owned utilities, to protect and harden the systems against cyber threats and to increase
participation in cybersecurity threat information sharing programs. The legislation also amends
the underlying statute to streamline financial assistance application processes to ensure funding
is allocated to small and rural entities that need it most.
H.R.____, Securing Community Upgrades for a Resilient Grid (SECURE Grid) Act
This legislation would amend requirements for State Energy Security Plans, authorized
by section 366 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, to consider threats to local
distribution alongside bulk-power systems, as well as supply chain and weather-related threats
and vulnerabilities. This bill also requires coordination with suppliers of manufactured
components and infrastructure in the electric grid to improve understanding of supply chain
risks. The bill would also clarify that the Department of Energy is not required to approve State
Energy Security Plans.
This legislation would require the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to the Secretary’s
statutory authorities, to carry out a program to coordinate Federal agencies, States, and the
energy sector to ensure the security, resiliency, and survivability of natural gas pipelines,
hazardous liquid pipelines, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. The program would
establish policies and procedures to coordinate analysis and information sharing; coordinate
responses to and recovery from physical and cyber incidents impacting the energy sector;
develop for voluntary use cybersecurity applications, technologies, and analytical tools; perform
pilot demonstration projects with the energy sector; and establish workforce development and
security curricula for such pipelines and LNG facilities. The legislation does not provide new
regulatory authority and further provides that it shall not be construed to modify the authority of
any other Federal agency other than DOE with respect to natural gas pipelines, hazardous liquid
pipelines, and LNG facilities. (Substantially similar legislation was reported favorably by the
Committee in the 115th, 116th, and 117th Congresses.)
For any questions regarding this hearing, please contact Mary Martin, Peter Spencer, or
Andrew Furman of the Committee Staff at (202) 225-3641.