Twice a year, Americans perform one of the stranger rituals of modern life. Phones quietly update themselves, microwave clocks stubbornly refuse to cooperate, parents attempt to persuade small children that bedtime really has changed, and millions of people spend several days feeling vaguely as though they have flown to a neighboring time zone without the compensating benefit of a vacation.
Congress may finally be ready to do something about it.
September’s IssueVoter Bill of the Month is the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, H.R. 139, sponsored by Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.). The bill would end the twice-yearly changing of the clocks and make daylight saving time permanent across most of the United States.
And unlike many previous congressional attempts to lock the clock, this one has made significant progress. On July 14, 2026, the House passed H.R. 139 by 308 votes to 117, with substantial support from both parties. The following day, it was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
But the real argument is not simply whether Americans should stop changing their clocks. It is what time they should keep once they stop. Permanent daylight saving time means lighter evenings but darker mornings. Permanent standard time does the opposite. That single hour turns out to involve rather more biology, economics, geography and politics than might reasonably be expected from something that mostly causes people to wonder why their oven is displaying the wrong time.
What Would H.R. 139 Actually Do?
Under current federal law, daylight saving time begins on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November. States may opt out altogether, which is why Hawaii and most of Arizona remain on standard time throughout the year. But states cannot simply choose permanent daylight saving time.
The U.S. Department of Transportation, which oversees the nation’s time zones and the Uniform Time Act, makes that distinction clear: states can exempt themselves from daylight saving time, but they cannot currently choose permanent daylight saving time on their own.
H.R. 139 would change that. Most Americans would remain permanently on the clocks they currently use between March and November. Existing exemptions would be preserved, allowing places already outside the daylight saving system to continue using standard time. The official text of H.R. 139 repeals the temporary daylight saving period and adjusts the statutory time zones accordingly.
In practical terms, the twice-yearly ritual of springing forward and falling back would disappear.
America Has Tried This Before
Permanent daylight saving time is not a new experiment. The United States used year-round daylight saving time during World War II and tried it again following the 1973 oil crisis. Congress established what was intended to be a roughly two-year experiment beginning in January 1974, partly in hopes of reducing energy use.
The idea proved less attractive once winter arrived. In some places, sunrise did not occur until close to 9 a.m. Children traveled to school in darkness and commuters began their days well before sunrise. Congress abandoned the experiment early, restoring winter standard time in October 1974.
A subsequent federal review found that the supposed benefits were modest and difficult to separate from other factors. The National Bureau of Standards found no significant overall energy savings or differences in motor vehicle fatalities, although it did identify a statistically significant increase in morning fatalities involving school-age children during part of the 1974 experiment, while cautioning that the increase could not simply be attributed to daylight saving time.
So permanent daylight saving time has already had something of a trial run. The reviews were decidedly mixed.
The Case for the Sunshine Protection Act
The most obvious argument for H.R. 139 is that changing the clocks twice a year serves increasingly little practical purpose.
More importantly, the transitions themselves can be disruptive. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has linked the spring transition to increased risks involving cardiovascular events, mood disorders and motor vehicle crashes. It supports eliminating seasonal clock changes altogether. Supporters therefore argue that eliminating the switch would remove an unnecessary disruption from millions of people's lives.
Rep. Buchanan has described the clock change as an outdated practice and argues that permanent daylight saving time would improve public safety, encourage outdoor activity and provide families with more usable daylight after work and school.
The IssueVoter analysis of H.R. 139 also highlights the economic and lifestyle case. Later evening daylight can encourage shopping, dining, tourism and outdoor recreation. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), for example, has pointed to the potential benefits for tourism destinations such as the Jersey Shore.
President Donald Trump also supports permanent daylight saving time. As IssueVoter notes, Trump has argued that changing clocks imposes unnecessary costs and inconvenience on individuals, businesses and governments.
There is also a simple lifestyle question. Congress cannot create additional daylight. It can only decide where to put it. Permanent daylight saving time effectively moves an hour toward the evening, when many people are awake, traveling home, exercising, shopping or spending time outdoors.
State legislatures have clearly heard that argument. The National Conference of State Legislatures has tracked hundreds of bills and resolutions dealing with permanent daylight saving time, permanent standard time and the twice-yearly clock change. NCSL daylight saving time state legislation tracker
There is unmistakable demand for change.
The Case Against: What About the Morning?
The strongest opposition to H.R. 139 does not generally come from supporters of the twice-yearly clock change. It comes from people who agree that the switching should end but believe Congress has chosen the wrong permanent time.
That distinction is central to the IssueVoter analysis. IssueVoter cites the National Sleep Foundation’s argument that permanent daylight saving time shifts light away from the morning, when it helps regulate circadian rhythms, and toward the evening, when additional light can delay sleep.
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine takes essentially the same position. It favors eliminating seasonal clock changes but recommends permanent standard time instead, arguing that standard time aligns more closely with human circadian biology and offers better health and safety outcomes. AASM position on permanent standard time
Morning sunlight helps synchronize the body's internal clock, while evening darkness encourages sleep. Permanent daylight saving time can work against both. This becomes particularly significant in northern areas and on the western edges of U.S. time zones, where permanent daylight saving time could push winter sunrise very late into the morning. That means children traveling to school and large numbers of commuters starting their days in darkness.
The health evidence therefore creates an interesting divide. Supporters of H.R. 139 point to the negative effects of changing the clocks and conclude that America should stop doing it. Sleep scientists largely agree. Then they add: just don't stop on daylight saving time.
What Does the Rest of the World Do?
The United States would hardly be alone in abandoning seasonal clock changes, but permanent daylight saving time is not the global norm.
In fact, fewer than 40 percent of countries currently use daylight saving time. In 2026, around 70 countries observe daylight saving time in at least part of their territory, while far more do not. China, India, Japan, Brazil and South Africa are among the major countries that simply keep the same time year-round.
Europe remains one of the main regions where seasonal clock changes are widespread. The United Kingdom and most European Union countries still move their clocks forward in the spring and back in the fall.
The European Commission proposed ending the twice-yearly change in 2018, but EU governments have never reached agreement on how the change should work. As of August 2026, no final decision or timetable had been agreed, so the current seasonal system remains in place.
Elsewhere, the picture is highly varied. Some countries have abandoned clock changes altogether, while others have effectively adopted a permanent summer-time arrangement.
The international experience therefore offers no obvious consensus about which permanent time is best. What it does show is that changing clocks twice a year is far from universal—and plenty of countries have concluded that one stable time throughout the year works perfectly well.
Does Daylight Saving Time Save Energy?
Energy conservation was one of the original justifications for daylight saving time, but the modern evidence is much less convincing. The theory is straightforward: later daylight means less need for artificial lighting in the evening. That mattered more when lighting accounted for a larger share of household energy use. Modern heating, air conditioning, appliances and electronics have complicated the equation, while efficient lighting has reduced the potential savings.
The federal evaluations of the 1970s experiment were notably underwhelming. The Department of Transportation concluded that potential energy and safety benefits were modest and difficult to isolate, while the National Bureau of Standards found no significant energy savings. Federal review of daylight saving time effects
H.R. 139 is consequently better understood as a decision about how Americans organize their day than as an energy conservation measure.
States Are Already Having the Same Argument
The map above shows just how active state legislatures have been on the issue—and also how little agreement there is about the answer. Click a state to see the bills and click Detail to read them.
The bills shown on the map cover 30 states and reveal a much more complicated picture than a simple march toward permanent daylight saving time. Some lawmakers are effectively anticipating H.R. 139, while others are trying to take their states in precisely the opposite direction.
Alaska provides perhaps the clearest illustration. HB 41 proposed permanent daylight saving time if Congress changed federal law, while HB 229 and SB 26 would instead move Alaska away from daylight saving time and toward year-round standard time.
North Carolina is similarly split. H 12 would have the state observe standard time all year, while S 81 would move North Carolina to permanent daylight saving time if Congress authorized it.
New Jersey lawmakers have presented voters with much the same philosophical choice. A 1703 and S 3236 support permanent daylight saving time, while S 293 would establish permanent standard time.
New York legislators have introduced multiple bills on both sides of the divide. A 3758 and S 7982 would eliminate daylight saving time, while A 5672 and S 3380 seek year-round daylight saving time.
Missouri illustrates another variation. HB 1685 would eliminate daylight saving time, while HB 1758 proposes a “Daylight Saving as New Standard Time Pact,” effectively seeking coordinated permanent daylight saving time.
Other states lean more clearly in one direction. California’s SB 1197, Washington’s HB 2119, Tennessee’s HB 2071 and Vermont’s H 538 favor year-round standard time. By contrast, Mississippi’s HB 279, New Mexico’s HB 112 and West Virginia’s SB 528 move toward permanent daylight saving time.
Ohio lawmakers have taken a more direct federal approach. HCR 10 and SCR 6 urge Congress to make daylight saving time permanent rather than attempting to resolve the issue solely at state level.
There is another pattern visible in the map: states are wary of acting alone. Several proposals would take effect only after a change in federal law, while others depend on nearby states making the same move. That caution reflects the practical problems created when neighboring states operate on different clocks. Commuters, schools, businesses, broadcasters and transportation networks do not necessarily respect state boundaries.
The state legislation also reinforces something the broader NCSL data has been showing for several years: the debate is increasingly less about whether the twice-yearly switch should continue and more about what should replace it.
Perhaps the clearest conclusion from the map is therefore that opposition to changing the clocks is considerably more unified than support for any particular replacement. Lawmakers across the country increasingly seem to agree that the twice-yearly switch has had its day. What they decidedly do not agree on is whether the future should mean permanent daylight saving time or permanent standard time. That is essentially the same argument now waiting for the U.S. Senate.
Does H.R. 139 Have a Real Chance of Becoming Law?
More than most previous versions of the Sunshine Protection Act. Congress has been here before. Previous versions of the proposal have generated considerable bipartisan support without ultimately becoming law. This time, however, the House has passed H.R. 139 by a commanding vote and is now in the Senate.
That House vote demonstrates unusually broad political support. Senate passage, however, is far from automatic. The state debates help explain why. The disagreement is not necessarily between people who want to change the clocks and people who do not. It is increasingly between supporters of permanent daylight saving time and supporters of permanent standard time.
That gives senators who dislike the existing system an obvious reason to oppose H.R. 139 without defending the current twice-yearly clock change.
President Trump, meanwhile, has publicly backed permanent daylight saving time, and the IssueVoter analysis includes his support among the principal arguments for the legislation.
The greater obstacle may simply be the congressional calendar. With H.R. 139 still awaiting Senate action and the 119th Congress entering its final months, supporters have limited room for another prolonged argument over which version of permanent time America should adopt. And that is precisely the argument the Senate may now have.
So, Should America Lock the Clock?
There is something unusually appealing about legislation whose basic premise is: please stop making everyone remember which way the clocks go. The argument for eliminating biannual changes is increasingly strong. The changes create inconvenience, disrupt sleep and are associated with short-term health and safety effects.
But supporting the end of clock changes does not automatically mean supporting H.R. 139.
The Sunshine Protection Act makes two decisions. It locks the clock—and then chooses which clock to lock. Supporters see permanent daylight saving time as a quality-of-life improvement: brighter evenings, more recreation, more economic activity and no disruptive clock changes. Opponents ask where that extra evening daylight comes from. The answer is darker mornings.
That is why major sleep researchers favor ending seasonal clock changes while recommending permanent standard time instead.
America's brief experiment in the 1970s also suggests some caution. Permanent daylight saving time sounded appealing until Americans experienced the reality of very late winter sunrises. Perhaps attitudes have changed. Work patterns, school schedules and energy use certainly have. But the sun remains stubbornly old-fashioned. Congress cannot manufacture another hour of daylight. H.R. 139 can only decide where Americans put it.
And after decades of arguments over changing the clocks, September's Bill of the Month leaves Congress with a deceptively simple choice: if America finally stops moving time twice a year, should it live permanently in the light of the evening—or the morning?
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page.