H.R. 139House bill · 119th CongressIn the Senatecrossed party linesScience, Technology, Communications

Sunshine Protection Act of 2025

Sponsored byVern BuchananR-FL-16Introduced Jan 3, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 15, 2026) Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jan 3, 2025

This bill makes daylight saving time the new, permanent standard time.

States with areas exempt from daylight saving time may choose the standard time for those areas.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • decisive vote

    House · Jul 14, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.

    308117

    Passed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

2 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • …Issues related to online platforms' use of broadcast content. H.Con.Res 12, Local Radio Freedom Act, All provisions. H.R. 139, Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, All provisions. H.R. 979, AM Radio For Every Vehicle Act, All provisions. H.R. 1880, Broadcast Freedom and… filing ↗
  • H.R.139 - To make daylight savings time permanent, and for other purposes. S.29 - A bill to make daylight saving time permanent, and for other… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

10 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay19d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
5
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Yea23d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
14
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea25d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
1
yusuf.aDemoCA-28voted Nay24d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
6
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Nay21d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
11
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay26d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
3
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea23d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
0
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea21d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
9
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea27d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
8
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay21d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
Your position on H.R. 13963% Yea · 8 VoteWire users