Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
A resolution commemorating the 70th anniversary of the United States Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry.
A Democratic resolution with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4087)
Adopted
The chamber formally agreed to it, and for a resolution that is the finish line: what it says is now officially the chamber's position, rule or tribute.
Nothing more is needed. A resolution is how a chamber speaks for itself or sets its own rules, so adopting it is what puts it into effect. It is not a law, so there is nothing for the President to sign.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Adopted by the Senate unanimous consent
A Senate resolution is the Senate speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the Senate agrees to it, it is officially the Senate's word; it is not a law, so the House and the President have no part in it.
The Senate by unanimous consent (no one objected, so there was no vote): no senator's position on it was recorded.
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 has been serving the Pacific region since 1956 under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The institute focuses on research, development, and technical assistance for Hawaii and United States-affiliated Pacific islands. Its work includes addressing tropical ecology, natural resources, and management. The resolution recognizes the institute's importance and its location on Hawaii Island. Finally, the Senate reaffirms its support for the ongoing operations of the IPF and its staff.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The institute conducts research on restoration, conservation, and the management of environmental stressors.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
The institute's work increases rural jobs and empowers local decision making.
- Scored +3
Does this invest in rural communities?
The institute's work increases the number of rural jobs and empowers local decision making.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Wildfire Mitigation: The IPIF develops mapping, risk analysis, and fire-mitigation strategies that transform fire response capacity and reduce long-term risks and costs (Whereas clause regarding wildfire threats).
-
Conservation and Ecosystem Protection: The institute conducts research into invasive species and develops conservation tools, such as biocontrol agents, to support endemic wildlife and plants (Whereas clause regarding cutting edge tropical research).
-
Economic and Community Benefits: The IPIF's work increases the number of rural jobs and empowers local decision making (Whereas clause regarding serving as a bridge between science and community).
-
Environmental Stability: Research on forests and watersheds supports vital ecosystem services like water storage, flood control, and erosion prevention (Whereas clause regarding healthy forests and watersheds).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts are explicitly stated in the provided 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 institute conducts research on restoration, conservation, and the management of environmental stressors. 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 mentions the importance of research in fighting against climate change.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The institute's work increases rural jobs and empowers local decision making. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The institute serves the Pacific region and U.S.-affiliated islands which includes diverse populations. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill notes the institute increases the number of rural jobs. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — The bill notes the institute increases the number of rural jobs.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The resolution notes that the institute's work increases the number of rural jobs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The resolution states the institute's location helps it carry out research goals in a fiscally responsible manner.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The Senate reaffirms its strong support for the critical ongoing operations and staff of the research institute.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — The bill notes that the institute increases the number of rural jobs.
- 7/14/2026
- Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.
- Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4087)
- 5/20/2026
- Submitted in Senate
- Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (text: CR S2419)
- 1 Cosponsor 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.
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii