On 7/28/2026 3:21 PM, Paul Eggert via tz wrote:
On 2026-07-28 11:19, Brooks Harris wrote:
I think the better approach is permanent standard time. If that came
about it's a very simple technical matter of just stopping DST and
everything flows fairly naturally from there. The Committee should
also be aware how that option would greatly simplify technical
issues. Am I right about that?
In any hypothetical conversions with Senate staff I am not planning to
advocate whether to go to permanent standard time, or move one time
zone east (a.k.a. "permanent daylight saving"), or doing nothing -
other than perhaps the obvious point that doing nothing is simplest
technically. I don't want these larger issues to drown out the
importance of a year's notice of any timekeeping changes. As I
understand it we're united on needing a good long notice, even if we
may disagree on which timekeeping change, if any, is advisable; and I
want to focus on where there is pretty much universal technical
agreement.
My focus when I contacted my Senator was on setting a good effective
date (suggesting November 2027).
I believe many of the efforts against DST (even seasonal DST) have
exaggerated the harm and downplayed any benefits. Often relying on
assumptions and articles that when fact checked turn out to be
inaccurate. Some of the examples would be humorous if the speakers were
not trying to be serious.
BTW: S. 29 was heard in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation last year ... approved 16-12 with an amendment by Senator
Ted Cruz to make it effective in two years.
The vote can be found near the 60 minute mark of this video:
https://www.congress.gov/event/119th-congress/senate-event/336893
(Senator Young of Indiana offered an amendment to "lock the clock" on
standard time and then withdrew his amendment.)
