NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump wants Congress to pass legislation that would give Americans a break from a twice-yearly nuisance, but the sun will likely set on the push in the Senate, where the issue is deeper than politics.
The House passed its bill, the Sunshine Protection Act, last week to allow states to voluntarily observe Daylight Saving Time year-round, but the legislation is hitting a brick wall in the Senate.
And it’s not the party aisle that’s defining the debate, it’s a horizontal line running through the United States that divides northern states versus southern states.
TIME ENOUGH AT LAST: WHAT’S NEXT AFTER THE HOUSE PASSES BILL TO DO AWAY WITH DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME?
“That is an issue in which there are passionate views on both sides,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said on whether the Senate would consider the bill.
“So we’ll see,” he continued. “I mean, the House having acted on it now, we’ll see what the interest level is in the Senate. But I know that there are people who are willing to really slow things down over that issue.”
Proponents argue that it’s an inconvenience in their states and are hungry for more daylight in the evening, while opponents say that it would force school-aged children to be in the dark for the beginning of the day.
One of the most vocal opponents of the legislation is one of Trump’s own allies on Capitol Hill, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who last year declared that he would “always oppose” efforts for permanent Daylight Saving.
HOUSE PASSES DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME REFORM AS TRUMP SIGNALS SUPPORT FOR ENDING CLOCK CHANGE
A source in Cotton’s orbit told Fox News Digital that the lawmaker was “far from the only one who objects” to the bill, and noted that the legislation is more of a grandfather clause that requires states to have already passed an observance of permanent standard time before the Sunshine Protection Act becomes law.
Hawaii and Arizona are the only two states that, by their own laws, observe permanent standard time, while no states observe a permanent Daylight Saving Time. It’s not the only time Congress has tried, either.
“Congress has already tried changing to permanent Daylight Saving Time before,” the source said. “It was so thoroughly hated that Congress reversed course the following year — but almost no one knows that.”
In the 1970s, lawmakers did enact a year-round Daylight Saving Time. But Americans rapidly soured on the change, especially parents whose children had to wait in the dark for the school bus. It was repealed about a year later.
GOP CIVIL WAR ERUPTS OVER TRUMP’S LATEST AGENDA PUSH AS KEY REPUBLICANS THREATEN TO SINK MEGABILL
“I can’t support a motion to go to Daylight Saving Time, because it means that the kids in South Dakota ended up going to school in the dark for about the first hour of classes for more than six months out of a year,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said. “So we can’t do that.”
Proponents argue, however, that it’s a long-needed change.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who originally introduced the Sunshine Protection Act alongside then-Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a decade ago, contended the push was “not a partisan issue, it’s a preference issue” that often fell along geographic lines.
Still, he acknowledged resistance from parents concerned about their kids going to school in the dark.
“This is left over from World War I when America was trying to save lamp oil. We’re doing OK on lamp oil now, so that’s not the issue on it,” Lankford said. “With streetlights, with different power and things, we have — we’re in a very different situation. And I talk to a lot of folks that say they are just sick of the time change. They want to be able to lock the clock.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
And Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who introduced the legislation last year, cheered the House passing the bill.
“It’s one of the most popular things in my state,” Scott said. “You wouldn’t believe how much I get asked about this.”
Still, he acknowledged the resistance coming from the North. He argued that he couldn’t understand how “anybody could vote against it when the state could make their own decision.”
“Give me the chance — I mean, look, in my state, the ability, we want to do it,” Scott said.
Read the full article here