A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
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
This bill, known as the "SPF Act of 2026," directs the National Park Service to look into ways to provide sun protection to visitors. It specifically asks for options to provide mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen or other methods at low or no cost within national parks. The Director of the National Park Service must submit a report to the House Committee on Natural Resources within one year of the act's enactment. This report should explore options such as public-private partnerships, nonprofit partnerships, or using existing National Park Service funds. Additionally, the report must address environmental impacts, usability for different skin tones, and awareness plans. Finally, the report must include recommendations for what Congress can do to support these efforts.
Yes· 3 of 23
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The provision of free or low-cost sunscreen directly benefits low-income visitors.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The bill enhances visitor safety and health management within the National Park system.
- Scored +3
Would children be better off under this?
Sun protection is highly beneficial for children visiting national parks.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Sun Protection Accessibility: The bill seeks to provide mineral-based, broad-spectrum sunscreen or other protective methods at low or no cost to visitors in national parks (Section 3(a)).
-
Skin Cancer Prevention: The bill notes that skin cancer carries significant risks, including an estimate of 8,290 related deaths in 2024, and aims to provide protection against such risks (Section 2(1)).
-
Improved Awareness: The report required by this act must include a plan for increasing awareness in national parks regarding the importance of sun protection to prevent skin damage and skin cancer (Section 3(b)(3)).
-
Equitable Protection: The report must address the equitable usability of provided sunscreen, specifically ensuring it can blend with all skin tones (Section 3(b)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Environmental Concerns: The bill acknowledges that the report must address the potential environmental impacts of any sunscreen provided in the national parks (Section 3(b)(1)).
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The provision of free or low-cost sunscreen directly benefits low-income visitors. Would children be better off under this? — Sun protection is highly beneficial for children visiting national parks. Would retired people be better off under this? — Highly beneficial for seniors frequently visiting national parks. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides critical protection against skin cancer risks for older populations. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Promotes skin health and addresses skin tone considerations for all people. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Promotes skin health and addresses skin tone considerations for all people. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Promotes skin health and addresses skin tone considerations for all people. Would men be better off under this? — Sun protection is a significant public health benefit for all genders. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Helps prevent skin damage and aging for middle-aged visitors. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Offers cost-saving sun protection options for families. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Promotes skin health and addresses skin tone considerations for all people. Would students be better off under this? — Provides accessible health protection for student travelers. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Promotes skin health and addresses skin tone considerations for all people. Would women be better off under this? — Sun protection is a significant public health benefit for all genders. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides health and skin protection for active young adults in parks. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides a minor benefit through available park amenities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Provides benefits when these residents visit national parks. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Provides benefits when these residents visit national parks.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The bill enhances visitor safety and health management within the National Park system. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill requires assessing the environmental impact of sunscreens to ensure protection of park ecosystems.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The bill explicitly directs the study of sunscreen usability across different skin tones to ensure equitable access.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill requires a report to Congress, increasing transparency in NPS planning. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill directs a federal agency (National Park Service) to explore and implement new provision options.
- 9/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/24/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
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 FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Michael LawlerRepublican · New York