John Curtis (R-UT)
Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025
A Republican bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-305.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Star-Spangled Summit Act of 2025 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to issue a special use permit for maintaining a flagpole with the United States flag at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point in Utah. The permit is to be issued for a 10-year period to Robert S. Collins or, if he declines, to a qualified person. Qualified persons must reside in or operate within Utah County and have specific experience. The Secretary has the authority to set terms to ensure proper care and can terminate permits for non-compliance. This Act also exempts the permit holder from land use fees and states that the National Environmental Policy Act does not apply to these activities.
Yes
- Scored +1
Would white Americans be better off under this?
The bill may be perceived positively by some White Americans due to its focus on maintaining a symbol of national pride.
- Scored +1
Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together?
The bill may be perceived positively by veterans, as it maintains a symbol of national pride.
- Scored +1
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The bill benefits rural residents in Utah County by prioritizing a local individual or organization for the permit.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
By exempting the project from NEPA, the bill could lead to negative environmental impacts from the flagpole's construction and maintenance.
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
By exempting the project from NEPA, it reduces environmental oversight.
- Scored -1
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill slightly impacts public land management by designating a specific use and limiting environmental review.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Flagpole Maintenance: The bill allows for the placing and maintenance of a flagpole bearing the flag of the United States at Kyhv Peak Lookout Point (Section 2(b)).
-
Fee Exemptions: The Secretary is prohibited from assessing any land use fees regarding the special use permit issued under this Act (Section 2(c)(4)).
-
Access Rights: The Secretary may authorize reasonable access to the lookout point so that permit holders can exercise their rights (Section 2(g)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Early Termination Risk: The Secretary has the authority to terminate a special use permit if they determine the holder is not following the required terms and conditions (Section 2(d)(2)).
-
Restriction on Financial Incentives: A permit holder is prohibited from accepting anything of value in exchange for identifying another person to hold the permit (Section 2(e)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — By exempting the project from NEPA, it reduces environmental oversight. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — By exempting the project from NEPA, the bill could lead to negative environmental impacts from the flagpole's construction and maintenance. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill slightly impacts public land management by designating a specific use and limiting environmental review.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The bill benefits rural residents in Utah County by prioritizing a local individual or organization for the permit. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — The bill may be perceived positively by veterans, as it maintains a symbol of national pride. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The bill may be perceived positively by some White Americans due to its focus on maintaining a symbol of national pride.
- 2/12/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-305.
- 7/23/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Mike LeeRepublican · Utah