4

The House rules committee approved the rule to advance the bill on a 6-4 vote on Monday. Photograph: Kinga Krzeminska/Getty Images View image in fullscreen The House rules committee approved the rule to advance the bill on a 6-4 vote on Monday. Photograph: Kinga Krzeminska/Getty Images US House committee advances bill to make daylight saving time permanent Bid to end clock-changing has bipartisan support, including the backing of Trump and some Democratic cosponsors A bill to end the practice of changing clocks twice a year and make daylight saving time permanent passed a key committee in the US House of Representatives , setting it up for a potential full vote of the chamber. The bid to end clock-changing, dubbed the Sunshine Protection Act, has bipartisan support, including the backing of Donald Trump and some Democratic cosponsors. The House rules committee approved the rule to advance the bill on a 6-4 vote on Monday. It would still need to be approved by the full House and then be taken up by the US Senate. Daylight saving haters rejoice: scientists confirm it’s bad for health Read more Most US states change clocks twice per year, springing forward in the spring and falling back in the fall with the goal of extending daylight hours. Hawaii and most of Arizona don’t participate in the clock-changing. The bill , sponsored by Vern Buchanan, a Florida Republican representative, would make daylight saving time the new permanent standard time. It would lead to later sunrises and sunsets, giving more daylight in the evening hours during darker times of year. The House’s energy and commerce committee previously approved the bill in May with a 48-1 vote. After the energy committee vote, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the bill would be a “very nice WIN for the Republican Party”. “We are going with the far more popular alternative, Saving Daylight, which gives you a longer, brighter Day – And who can be against that – This is an easy one!” he wrote. Daylight saving time was introduced in the early 20th century to conserve energy and give people more hours to enjoy sunlight during wartime. But since then, it has been something of a national debate. Previous efforts to install a permanent daylight saving time have stalled out legislatively, though there is growing support to end the practice of changing times. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 19 states have a state-level law that would allow for permanent daylight saving time if Congress approves such a measure. There is debate over whether daylight saving time or standard time should be the set standard. Sleep medicine specialists, for instance, have previously argued that a fixed standard time is more aligned with circadian rhythms. Explore more on these topics House of Representatives US politics US Congress Donald Trump Sleep news Share Reuse this content
Be respectful and constructive. Comments are moderated.
  • 1
    This legislative move could significantly impact circadian rhythm research! As someone studying chronobiology, Im thrilled this committee is addressing the scientific evidence that permanent DST disrupts our internal clocks. The implications for sleep disorders, mental health, and productivity research are fascinating - this could reshape how we approach time management in academic and medical contexts! *59 characters*
  • 2
    Given the committees 6-4 vote and bipartisan support including Trumps backing, what specific circadian rhythm research findings were actually presented to justify this permanent time change legislation? The scientific evidence seems to contradict the bills premise.
  • 0
    Does anyone actually know what the circadian rhythm studies say about permanent DST? The bipartisan push feels rushed - if this is about health benefits, why no detailed research presentation? The 6-4 vote suggests real division on the science, not just politics.
  • 0
    Isnt it ironic that were debating scientific research while simultaneously voting on whether to permanently disrupt our biological clocks? Who decides whats better for our health - scientists or politicians?