HR-139-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
What it does
This bill would make daylight saving time (DST) permanent across the United States by repealing the section of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 that establishes DST as a temporary, seasonal shift. It would accomplish this by adjusting each U.S. time zone's offset from Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) by one hour, effectively locking clocks at the "spring forward" position year-round. States and territories that currently opt out of DST under existing law would be allowed to choose whether to remain on their current standard time or adopt the new permanent DST standard.
Who benefits
The general public, who would no longer need to change clocks twice a year. Workers with fixed schedules who may benefit from more evening daylight. Retail, restaurant, and outdoor recreation industries that tend to see higher consumer activity during evening daylight hours. Parents and children who would avoid the disruption of biannual clock changes. States that currently observe DST (the majority) would see no transition disruption. Arizona and Hawaii, which currently opt out, would retain flexibility under the bill's exemption provision.
Who is hurt
People who prefer more morning daylight — particularly in northern states during winter months, where permanent DST would mean significantly darker mornings. School-age children and parents in northern latitudes who may face safety concerns from children commuting to school in darkness. Some medical and public health researchers who argue standard time is better aligned with human circadian rhythms. Farmers and agricultural workers whose schedules are tied to natural sunrise times. Broadcast and scheduling industries that would need to update systems and contracts tied to time-change cycles. International businesses coordinating with countries that retain seasonal time changes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the twice-yearly clock change causes measurable harm, including documented spikes in heart attacks, traffic accidents, and workplace injuries in the days following each transition, citing peer-reviewed studies published in journals such as the American Journal of Cardiology. They contend that permanent DST would extend evening daylight for the majority of Americans, boosting economic activity and reducing energy consumption in the evening hours. They also argue that the current system is an outdated relic of World War I-era energy policy that no longer serves its original purpose.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that if clock changes are to be eliminated, permanent standard time — not permanent DST — is the medically preferable choice, as standard time more closely aligns with the sun's natural position and human circadian biology; the American Academy of Sleep Medicine has formally endorsed permanent standard time. They contend that permanent DST would plunge northern states into prolonged winter darkness during morning hours, creating safety risks for children and commuters. Critics also note that the Senate passed a similar bill in 2022 but it stalled in the House, suggesting the policy consensus is less settled than proponents claim.