HRES-1355-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Troy Carter (D-LA)
What it does
This resolution would express the House of Representatives' support for the annual "National Men's Health Week" and request that the President issue a proclamation calling on Americans and interested groups to observe the week of June 14–21, 2026, with appropriate ceremonies and activities. It does not create any new programs, mandate any spending, or impose any legal requirements on any person or entity.
Who benefits
Men and boys across the United States who may gain increased awareness of preventive health screenings and early detection tools. African-American and Hispanic men, who the resolution specifically identifies as facing higher rates of chronic disease and lower rates of seeking care, could benefit from targeted outreach. Healthcare providers, public health organizations, and community groups that organize men's health awareness events may see increased participation and visibility. Families of men who adopt healthier behaviors as a result of awareness campaigns would also benefit indirectly.
Who is hurt
No group faces a direct legal or financial burden from this resolution. Competing awareness campaigns or health observances scheduled during the same week could face marginally reduced attention. There are no direct costs imposed on any individual, business, or government entity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that men die an average of more than five years earlier than women, are twice as less likely to visit a doctor for preventive care, and that diseases like prostate and testicular cancer have survival rates approaching 100% when caught early. They contend that a nationally recognized awareness week — already celebrated by all 50 governors and mayors of over 350 cities — provides a proven, low-cost mechanism to encourage men, particularly those in high-risk groups like African-American and Hispanic men, to seek screenings and adopt healthier behaviors.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a non-binding resolution with no accompanying funding, programmatic action, or policy change does little to address the structural barriers — such as lack of health insurance, high out-of-pocket costs, and limited access to providers — that the resolution itself identifies as reasons men avoid care. They contend that congressional resources and attention would produce more measurable health outcomes if directed toward legislation that funds screenings, expands coverage, or addresses the documented racial disparities in prostate cancer incidence and mortality.