Jill Tokuda (D-HI)
Commemorating the 70th anniversary of the United States Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry.
A Democratic resolution with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
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
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution commemorates the 70th anniversary of the United States Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF). The IPIF operates under a research portfolio and the Pacific Southwest Research Station Charter. Since 1956, it has served the Pacific region, including Hawaii and United States-affiliated Pacific islands. The institute focuses on tropical ecology, natural resources, and management. The resolution recognizes the institute's scientific contributions and its location on Hawaii Island. Finally, it reaffirms House support for the IPIF's ongoing operations and staff.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The IPIF conducts research on invasive species and develops conservation tools to support endemic wildlife and plants.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The resolution explicitly states the IPIF increases the number of rural jobs and empowers local decision making.
- Scored +3
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
The resolution notes that forest and watershed research is important for fighting against climate change.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Wildfire Safety and Cost Reduction: The IPIF develops wildfire mapping, risk analysis, and science-driven fire-mitigation strategies which transform fire response capacity and reduce long-term risks and costs. (Preamble)
-
Environmental Conservation: The institute conducts research on invasive species and develops conservation tools, such as biocontrol agents, to support endemic wildlife and plants. (Preamble)
-
Economic and Community Benefits: The IPIF's work increases the number of rural jobs and empowers local decision making through conservation partnerships and cultural stewardship. (Preamble)
-
Ecosystem Services: Healthy forests and watersheds supported by this research provide vital services such as water storage, flood control, and erosion prevention. (Preamble)
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly mentioned in the text.
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? — The IPIF conducts research on invasive species and develops conservation tools to support endemic wildlife and plants. Does this invest in rural communities? — The institute's work increases the number of rural jobs and empowers local decision making. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — The resolution notes that forest and watershed research is important for fighting against climate change.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The resolution explicitly states the IPIF increases the number of rural jobs and empowers local decision making. Would farmers be better off under this? — The research into natural resources and land management provides benefits to agricultural interests. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The institute's focus on indigenous perspectives and cultural stewardship benefits local indigenous communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The increase in rural jobs and ecosystem services may benefit low-income communities. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The economic and job creation benefits of the institute may assist middle-class rural residents.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The resolution notes that the IPIF's work increases the number of rural jobs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The text states the institute is vital to ensuring research goals are carried out in a fiscally responsible manner.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The resolution reaffirms House support for the ongoing operations and staff of this scientific research institute.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The increase in rural jobs supported by the institute may contribute to poverty reduction.
- 6/30/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture.
- 5/20/2026
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
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.
Ed CaseDemocrat · Hawaii
Kimberlyn King-HindsRepublican · Northern Mariana Islands
James MoylanRepublican · Guam