PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Apr 2, 2026
Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2026
This bill directs the Forest Service to issue a special use permit to maintain a flagpole bearing the American flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in the Uinta National Forest, which is in Utah.
The Forest Service must issue the special use permit for a 10-year period and renew the permit as required by the bill. The Forest Service may impose terms and conditions on a permit holder to ensure the proper care and maintenance of the flagpole.
The bill prohibits the Forest Service from charging a land use fee for the special use permit.
The bill also exempts such permit from environmental review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
As background, Scoutmaster Robert Collins and his scout troop raised the American flag at the point in 2000 and lowered it before winter. The flag was raised annually until the Forest Service cited policy that requires a permit for the construction or placement of any structure, including flagpoles, on National Forest lands. The bill directs the Forest Service to issue a special use permit so the flag may continue to be raised seasonally each year.
People & committees
Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3570)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3570)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4684.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3570-3572)
Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 504.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-584.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-584.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged
Subcommittee Hearings Held
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.4684 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.
Examine H.R.4684 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.
Examine H.R.4684 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.
Examine H.R.4684 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.