On 7/17/2026 1:51 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Lawmakers hear the two main, simplistic arguments for “permanent DST” — it’s hard to adjust clocks, and sunny evenings are preferable to sunny mornings — and race to enact a feel-good measure with little to no consideration for possible ill effects.
Other lawmakers have hear the "permanent standard time" arguments and would support such a measure if it were proposed. H.R. 9638 was proposed last week for permanent standard time and had 5 cosponsors.
At the moment more representatives support permanent DST. H.R. 139 has 34 cosponsors (one withdrew before the vote was taken) and the vote was 308-117. The Senate version of permanent DST has 18 cosponsors (eight Democrats, ten Republicans).
The email invited lengthier responses, and I plan one, but how much that can change her mind is questionable.
My Senator is on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As one of his constituents I have already sent my opinion and have asked for a reply. I included a request to set an effective date of November 2027 in my comments.
I also pointed him to https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/how-time-zones-are-coordinated-13-03-2023-en for more information as to why sufficient notice is needed.
