Senate Hearing on Daylight Savings Time

Mr. Cruz (00:00):

Without giving it much thought. But when we take a closer look at the implications of changing the clocks, its impact on our economy, our health, and our everyday lives, we can see that this practice is more than an annoyance. First, let's talk about energy savings, which has long been the most common justification for daylight savings time. The original idea behind daylight savings time was to reduce energy consumption by making better use of daylight during the longer days of summer. The idea was simple. Fewer hours of darkness meant less electricity consumption for lighting and heating.

(00:37)
This concept might've made sense in the early 20th century when our economy and our homes relied much more heavily on energy consumption tied to daylight hours. Today, the data show energy savings from daylight savings time are de minimis, if not entirely non-existent. Advances in technology, particularly in lighting and climate control and increased domestic energy production have drastically reduced the relative price of energy compared to the past. Changing clocks biannually impacts our health. Research has shown that the abrupt shift in time, especially the spring transition when we lose an hour of sleep disrupts our internal circadian rhythms and causes sleep deprivation.

(01:25)
This leads to increased risks of health problems, including higher rates of heart attacks, strokes, and even car accidents immediately following the time change. In fact, studies have shown that there is a spike in workplace injuries and fatal car crashes during the days after we shift our clocks forward. The disruption to sleep patterns and the resultant fatigue can have consequences on our productivity, mental health and wellbeing.

(01:57)
The time change is also an inconvenience for families. For parents, especially those with young children, adjusting to the time change is no simple task. Sleep disruptions can result in cranky children, restless nights and a difficult adjustment period that can last for weeks. We also need to consider the economic and social impact. There are arguments that longer daylight hours in the evening can boost economic activity in certain sectors such as retail, tourism and entertainment. For instance, late afternoon golf leagues account for up to 40% of the annual revenue of some courses, while a majority of golf instructors reported that nearly 50% of their lessons are taught after 4:00 PM. A golf course would lose an estimated $500,000 annually if it lost the extra hour of daylight in the summer. Of course, the early birds who like 7:00 AM tee times might be a bit annoyed with this shift. Many states and countries like Mexico and Russia and Turkey have already taken steps to move away from changing clocks twice a year. Hawaii and Arizona have opted out of the practice, and other countries in the past 10 years have either abolished it or in the process of doing so. Congress has the authority to end this outdated and harmful practice. This hearing is an excellent opportunity to examine a thoughtful and rational approach to how we manage time. Whether we lock the clock on standard time year-round, or on daylight savings time, let's think carefully about our health, our economy and well-being, and embrace a sensible approach to time management. And I'll now turn to Senator Blunt Rochester for her opening.

Senator Blunt Rochester (03:53):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. In our increasingly connected world, it's more important than ever that we're thoughtful about what it would mean to pick a permanent time for our country. The Senate has tried this before, but the bill stalled as this body took a harder look at how time changes work state by state. What works in my home state of Delaware may not work in Washington state, but I know I speak for many Americans when I say it's time, it's time to figure this out. People across our country are tired of the constant cycle of falling back and springing forward. I mean, who hasn't forgotten to change their clock on their microwave? I think mine is still on the wrong time, and felt the immediate panic of waking up late for work. Or think about the parents of young children and pet owners who have to adjust sleep and feeding schedules twice a year.

(04:57)
Some would say that these are just inconveniences, but the back and forth between daylight savings time and standard time needs to change and needs to stop. We need to stop the clock. We need to find a solution and stick with it. Many states across our nation have started to consider legislation to pick a permanent time. Some, like Delaware, have pushed for keeping daylight saving time, the time we're in right now permanently. Others have sought to keep the standard time, when we fall back permanently. But here's the thing, these twice yearly time changes have real impacts on real people. We know that changing the clock disrupts sleep, which can lead to negative health outcomes. Several studies have noted issues with mood disturbances, increased hospital admissions, and even heart attacks and strokes. We also know that being able to see the sun improves mental and physical health as well. But more than that, time changes can impact the safety of our communities.

(06:09)
Darker commuting times increase the risk of injuries and even death on our way to school or work. My home state has one of the highest per capita rates of pedestrian fatalities, and dark roads with tired drivers make it more dangerous for pedestrians. The important thing is that we land on something consistent and make smart investments to keep people safe. For example, there were programs that we authorized in the bipartisan infrastructure law that focused on common sense safety improvements, but they are set to expire this Congress. I hope the committee will keep this discussion in mind when it comes time to reauthorize these infrastructure investments.

(06:55)
Investments that could keep light or that could light up dark streets, add rumble strips to medians, turn chaotic intersections into roundabouts and more. These are the kinds of smart policy choices we can make to protect people year round regardless of whether it is daylight saving time or standard time. But the first step is getting us all on the same page. I'm looking forward to today's conversation about the competing health, safety, and economic impacts of choosing a permanent time for our communities and moving the ball forward on this important issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I turn it back to you.

Mr. Cruz (07:38):

Thank you, Senator Blunt Rochester. And I have to say, I think you set a land speed record for moving from the chair on the end all the way here. And I'll just say, Senator Kent probably needs to watch her back. And I am somewhat disappointed in your excellent remarks that we did not get you belting out the chorus of Cher's If We Could Turn Back Time.

Senator Blunt Rochester (08:03):

I told you, it is something that peps us up. We need the energy.

Mr. Cruz (08:08):

Joining us today is our friend Senator Rick Scott from the Sunshine State, to give remarks on his legislation, the Sunshine Protection Act. Senator Scott, welcome back to the Commerce Committee.

Senator Rick Scott (08:20):

First off, Senator Cruz, thank you for the opportunity. And Senator Blunt Rochester, you've done a better job keeping your sweetness in this committee also than I was able to. Thanks for the introduction. The invitation introduced by bill, the Sunshine Protection Act to finally lock the clock. Senator Cruz, I know you're mourning. It's been a tough week for you with the NCAA Championship. I do look forward to the-

Mr. Cruz (08:45):

Your time has expired.

Senator Rick Scott (08:49):

… All right. My bipartisan bike arm with Sunshine Protection Act. It will end the twice yearly time change and make daylight savings time the national year-round standard. I have the support of 17 of my colleagues here in the Senate and a house companion led by my friend Congressman Vern Buchanan from the great state of Florida. I'm sure all of us have heard from our constituents on this. The American people are sick and tired of changing the clocks twice a year. It's confusing, unnecessary and completely outdated. It's an understatement to say their nation has changed since the United States began changing the clock over a century ago. For example, American households have electricity now, we also have self-driving cars, computers, and cell phones. Now changing the clocks twice a year proves more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to them. In 2018, when I was governor of Florida, I signed legislation that would allow the state to opt out of the practice of changing the time.

(09:41)
Nearly two dozen other states have done the same, pending federal approval that will come by passing the Sunshine Protection Act. The American people love having extra hour of sunlight, especially in my state of Florida, where that means more time you can enjoy outdoors and activities with families. Studies also show the potential for reduced cardiac issues, stroke and seasonal depression, reduced robberies, benefits to the agricultural and overall economy with an extra hour of sunlight. This is a common-sense change to simplify and benefit the lives of Americans, and we have a great opportunity to finally get this done with President Trump on board to lock the clock. I want to thank the committee for the consideration of the Sunshine Protection Act. I'm optimistic we can get this passed, signed in the law and finally lock the clock. Thank you.

Mr. Cruz (10:31):

Thank you, Senator Scott. You are welcome to stay if you like, but I know you have a busy schedule, so if you need to attend other responsibilities, you certainly can do so. And the game was great except for the final minutes. I would've liked to lock the clock with one minute remaining. That would've been an excellent idea. Our first witness this morning is Scott Yates, the founder of the Lock the Clock movement. Mr. Yates started the movement to remove the biannual chore of changing the clock. Our second witness is Jay Karen. He is the CEO of the National Golf Course Owners Association where he represents thousands of golf course owners across the country.

(11:12)
Our third witness today is Dr. Karin Johnson, a practicing sleep medicine physician and Professor of Neurology at the University of Massachusetts Chan School of Medicine Baystate. She is here on behalf of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Our final witness is Dr. David Harkey. Dr. Harkey is the President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is an organization dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries and property damage from motor vehicle crashes. Mr. Yates, you may give your opening statement.

Mr. Yates (11:46):

Thank you so much Chairman Cruz, ranking member Blunt Rochester, and members of the United States Commerce Committee. Thank you and for inviting for me. Thank you for inviting me here today. Allow me to start with a hypothetical. Imagine two people commit the exact same crime on the exact same day, and they're the same in every way, but today one of them is out of prison and one of them remains behind bars. What is the difference? The second man was sentenced on the Monday after we spring forward into daylight saving time. Researchers at the University of Washington reviewed every criminal sentence handed down in America over an 11-year period and found the single harshest day of sentencing of the whole year was that Monday in March when judges, like all of us, had been jolted awake an hour earlier than their bodies had been expecting. That one seemingly harmless government mandate, dialing our clocks back one hour, means some people receive harsher sentences than they otherwise would.

(12:41)
The harm doesn't stop there. Both of your opening statements alluded to all of the problems that we have, and peer-reviewed studies consistently show that heart attacks go up, strokes, car crashes, even miscarriages spike in those days following the spring switch. A study from the University of Vienna found deaths overall just increased by 3% in those couple of days after the change. Medical errors go up, diabetics lose glucose control, crime goes up. Just yesterday, the Journal of Neurology published a report saying that more people get migraines in the days after the time change. And why do we do this? For the farmers? No. The story about the farmers was always just a myth. It was created as a PR stunt by a retailer in Boston who wanted more daylight for shoppers to have more time to shop. He thought it would sound better if we said it was for the farmers. If changing the time twice a year is so deadly and such an outdated relic, why haven't we fixed it yet?

(13:34)
It's probably because of this issue we face about whether we should lock into permanent daylight or permanent standard time. I've seen countless polls and I've talked to thousands of people about this, most people don't actually prefer one or the other that much. They just want to stop the switching. There are valid arguments for either permanent choice. So, what should Congress do? What should this committee do? My name is Scott Yates. I've been reading, writing and testifying about this for nearly a decade, and I have this recommendation. Lock the clock as this bill says, but after a two-year implementation. If we wait until 2027, we'll continue to allow states to opt out and opt into standard time just as Hawaii and most of Arizona have done. This is fundamentally a state's rights issue.

Speaker 1 (14:19):

[inaudible 00:14:19], Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, Michael Schwerner. These are people who died for me to be here today. Congressman John Lewis, who most of you served with, died for me to be here today. And this bill would make it tougher than it has ever been in American history to register to vote at a time where we have the technological ability to be able to verify election eligibility. But we don't want to do that. We want to make it tougher for people to actually get registered to vote, and that is not what we should be doing. We should be making it easier for people to vote easier. Easier.

Mr. Speaker (14:54):

Time has expired.

Speaker 1 (14:55):

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker (14:56):

The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from New York Reserves his time. Gentleman from Wisconsin.

Speaker 2 (15:01):

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker (15:04):

The gentleman has three and a half minutes.

Speaker 2 (15:06):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the representative from California, Mr. Kiley to [inaudible 00:15:11].

Mr. Speaker (15:11):

Gentleman's recognized for one minute.

Mr. Kiley (15:13):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-sponsor of the SAVE Act to advance the radical proposition that only American citizens should vote in American elections. Now, of course this isn't radical at all. It is common sense. I think the vast majority of Americans would be shocked to learn that it elicits any opposition at all. In many states in this country, foremost my own state of California, the administration of our elections is completely out of touch with the rest of the developed world, falling well short of the standards that ought to exist in a modern democratic society.

(15:46)
This measure requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote is a needed corrective. I believe in my state, it'll complement other initiatives that we are advancing now to require voter ID and to have a timely vote counting process in order to restore public confidence in our election process. What is at stake is not only election integrity and election security, but democratic legitimacy, ensuring that our people have the ability to express themselves fully and our own identity as a state in the country through the democratic process. I urge passage of this on a bipartisan basis and I yield.

Mr. Speaker (16:19):

Gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Kiley (16:19):

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker (16:20):

Gentleman from Wisconsin reserves his time. Gentleman from New York.

Morelle (16:24):

Thank you, Ms. Speaker. I'd like to yield one minute to the gentlelady from California, Ms. Friedman.

Mr. Speaker (16:29):

Gentlewoman from New York is recognized for one minute.

Ms. Friedman. (16:33):

California.

Mr. Speaker (16:34):

California.

Ms. Friedman. (16:35):

Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle. I rise in strong opposition to the so-called SAVE Act, a bill that is a modern-day poll tax targeting American women and low-income Americans.

Mr. Karen (16:45):

Emily, while hitting a little white ball. Little known facts, 75% of golf courses in America are open to the public and nearly $5 billion each year is raised for charitable causes through golf. I also understand golf outings can be an effective fundraiser for political campaigns. The health benefits of golf are well documented, so we tend to vehemently disagree with Mark Twain's assessment of golf as a good walk spoiled. Now, about the clock. Locking the clock doesn't change how much daylight we have, just where it shows up on the clock. For golf and many outdoor activities, a shift can have significant economic and wellness implications. Golf thrives in what we call recreational daylight, the overlap of sunlight and people's availability to be outdoors. Americans overwhelmingly prefer evening recreation over early morning. This isn't just about golf, it's about soccer, jogging, walking, biking, tennis, and so much more.

(17:46)
Making standard time permanent would shift one hour per day from recreational to non-recreational daylight. Simplistically, it trades 8:00 PM. for 8:00 AM. At golf courses, later hours generate about 40% more revenue per hour than early mornings. Trading backwards would cost the average public golf course at least 7 to 8% of their annual revenue by removing the best inventory we have on our shelves, which is approximately 37 million rounds of golf, and would cost the industry at least $1.6 billion or nearly $200,000 per course. This analysis only includes green fee revenue. Does not include spending on golf, car rentals, merchandise, food and beverage, golf lessons, and other areas of the business. Thus, only 7% of our members support making standard time permanent. Those who favor standard time year-round say their morning play is more valuable to them than their afternoon play. These may be resorts that want players off the course and in the restaurants at a reasonable hour.

(18:49)
Now, making daylight saving time permanent would provide additional recreational daylight from November to March, and would add an estimated 23 million rounds to the current golf inventory. This would give the industry a tailwind of about a $1 billion or roughly $250,000 per affected facility. 64% of our members support making daylight saving time permanent. The status quo, changing of our clocks twice per year, avoids both the significant downside while forfeiting the moderate upside. 27% of golf course owners and operators support keeping the status quo of changing the clocks. Many golf courses slow down in the winter and enjoy having some relief later in the day for their employees with the sun setting earlier. Or they may have a healthy clientele of older players who would prefer no disruption to their 7:00 AM tee time or their 11:00 bridge game. Keep in mind, all these figures do not include thousands of private clubs, which would augment the impacts in both directions by an enormous sum.

(19:52)
In conclusion, the Senate is facing a classic Gordian knot. There will be winners and losers no matter which way the knot is cut. But our members clearly prefer daylight saving time and strongly oppose permanent standard time. We recognize the sleep related arguments for standard time, but the benefits of extended daylight for physical and mental health, outdoor recreation and public safety are significant. Obesity, depression, and crime all have ties to reduced daylight and sedentary lifestyles. So, in short, we urge the Senate to avoid the consequences of permanent standard time. We encourage solutions that preserve evening daylight for golf, for health, for recreation and local economies. Thank you.

Mr. Cruz (20:36):

Thank you. And Dr. Johnson.

Dr. Karin Johnson (20:38):

Thank you, Chairman Cruz, Senator Blunt Rochester, distinguished members of the Senate. Thank you for having me. My name is Dr. Karin Johnson, state immunologist and practicing sleep medicine specialist in Massachusetts, and am here representing the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. I want to extend my gratitude to Chairman Cruz for having this timely committee hearing. In December, President Trump called to end daylight savings time, and his Make America Healthy Commissions mandate to reduce chronic diseases, especially in children, aligns with permanent standard time. Unfortunately, permanent daylight saving time and the Sunshine Protection Act do the opposite. So, I have three main takeaways. First, the spring's clock change to daylight saving time is bad, but permanent daylight savings time is worse. Second, year-round standard time is the natural, healthy choice promoting physical health, mental health, performance, and safety. Third, history supports that permanent standard time is the only viable solution to end seasonal clock change.

(21:44)
So, let me elaborate. The majority of Americans do consistently want to lock the clock, but it has been more inconsistent about how to ditch the switch. But in March, there was a new Gallup poll that just showed a significant shift in public opinion, with twice as many Americans now supporting permanent standard time over permanent daylight savings time. 60% of Americans and 80% of teens don't get the recommended amount of sleep. So, there's a lot of room to improve sleep. Think about how you, your children feel after a bad night of sleep. Maybe you forgot an important meeting, drifted out of your lane, eating that extra bowl of ice cream. I know I've done those things. You may have struggled to get your teenager out of bed or been a little short with your husband.

(22:37)
Now, instead, think about how much better you feel and function after a good night's sleep. Permanent standard time would give more Americans to get the opportunity to improve their sleep without even trying. The sun is one of the most powerful drivers of health and well-being, but the timing of sunlight is what's critically important. Without enough morning light or with too

Dr. Karin Johnson (23:00):

… much evening light, our circadian rhythms delay. This disrupts our sleep patterns and our body and brain functions. Permanent daylight savings time would cause sunrises after 8 AM for two to four months every winter, depriving us of this critical morning light. This is why permanent daylight saving time would be exponentially worse than seasonal daylight saving time. The adverse effects are greatest in our children, our teenagers, and other night owls whose body clocks already run late. As discussed, there are many harmful benefits that occur in the days after this change, especially in the spring, to daylight savings time, including more strokes and heart attacks. As highlighted in the prior testimony, brain function is really affected by sleep, and so we heard about judges making harsher statements. However, these harms does not mean that permanent daylight savings time would be better, instead, the later sunrises and sunsets of daylight savings time lead to higher risks of chronic diseases, including but not limited to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and these outweigh the short-term risks of what happens with the time change.

(24:18)
There's also data that says that permanent standard time also results in better mental health outcomes, including reducing rates of depression and suicide. This is not surprising as morning light and healthy sleep are known treatments for depression. On the other hand, poor sleep increases the risk of drug use, alcohol use, and other risk-taking behaviors. There are some misconceptions I want to address. As discussed, permanent daylight savings items does not make days longer, nor is it the reason why people feel better in the summer. Instead, permanent daylight savings time is a hidden mandate to wake Americans up an hour earlier to their alarm clocks rather than the sun. If we called it the Go To Work An Hour Earlier Act rather than the Sunshine Protection Act, no one would be voting for it. Permanent daylight savings time does not increase overall exercise levels in the US, and even if some people exercise more, obesity and heart disease, these chronic diseases, are still more prevalent.

(25:23)
While darkness comes with health and safety risks, daylight savings time is not the solution. There is no data to support that permanent daylight savings time would reduce overall crime or motor vehicle crashes, instead later sunrises and sunsets are associated with 20% more fatal crashes. The negative impact of daylight savings time on sleep and our brain health harms the economy. Workers, especially those with early start times before 8:30, think of your farmers, your transportation workers, your factory workers, are less likely to be productive and efficient. Workplace injuries rise after the transition to daylight savings time, and healthcare spending increases. On the other hand, permanent standard time improves academic success in our children with higher test scores. Your constituents utility bills will be lower with permanent standard time by reducing heating and cooling costs. And finally, the US tried and quickly abandoned permanent daylight savings time twice before, most recently in 1974. It just doesn't work, it won't last. For those that are serious about ending clock changes, permanent standard time is the only viable solution. Please refer to my written testimony for more details, and happy to look forward to the questions later.

Mr. Cruz (26:37):

Thank you very much. Dr. Harkey.

Dr Harkey (26:41):

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Blunt Rochester, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to share the IHS research on the road safety implications of daylight saving time. When discussing any topic on road safety in the United States, it is important to set the stage. Simply put, we are in a road safety emergency. Crash deaths have risen nearly 30% since 2014, from below 33,000 to more than 42,000 in 2022. Pedestrian crashes in particular have reached crisis levels, climbing more than 80% from their low point in 2009. Changing the clocks twice a year is relevant to road safety first and foremost because it affects the amount of ambient light during peak times for travel. We know that darkness is associated with increased risk of fatal crashes. We do about a quarter of our travel at night, but nearly half of motor vehicle occupant deaths and three quarters of pedestrian deaths occur in the dark.

(27:40)
Obviously, adjusting the clock cannot increase the number of daylight hours, but can only shift how they align with work and school schedules. Since people travel at all times of day and the risk created by darkness varies by road user type, the effects of these time changes on crashes are complex. The aim of our recent study was to examine the effect of changes in light conditions associated with the beginning and the end of daylight saving time. We examined 10 years of fatality data for the five weeks before and after each time change and only considered crashes between 4 AM and 10 AM and between 3 PM and 9 PM. Ambient light conditions were calculated using the sunrise and sunset times corresponding to the geographic coordinates of each crash. Crashes resulting in vehicle occupant deaths fell 7% in the five weeks after the time change in the fall and increased 12% in the five weeks after the time change in the spring.

(28:40)
The opposite was true for crashes resulting in pedestrian or bicyclist deaths. Those crashes rose 13% in the fall and declined 24% in the spring. The net effect was 26 fewer morning and evening crashes with pedestrian or bicyclist fatalities per year and 29 additional morning and evening crashes with vehicle occupant fatalities. It is important to emphasize that our study does not point to a preference for standard time or daylight savings time based on road safety alone. The clearest takeaway from this research is that there is a strong relationship between increased darkness and fatal crashes, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. This is consistent with previous studies, including our own work from 30 years ago examining the effects of daylight saving time. While the clock may not hold the answer to our road safety crisis, there are known solutions for protecting pedestrians in dark and low light conditions and for reducing the crash toll overall. We should commit to infrastructure and vehicle improvements that have been shown to increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on different types of roadways in urban, suburban and rural environments.

(29:58)
This includes engineering treatments to improve motor shielding behavior and vehicle technology such as better headlights and automatic emergency braking. Efforts are also needed to address speed on our roadways. The speed effect on crash severity is more pronounced for pedestrians and bicyclists who do not have the benefit of the vehicle structure to protect them. Speed limit policy, enforcement, engineering, and vehicle technology all have a role to play in slowing down drivers. Such a multi-pronged strategy to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at night exemplifies the safe system approach, which the USDOT has adopted as the guiding paradigm of the National Roadway Safety Strategy. But implementation has simply been too slow.

(30:47)
We are alarmed by the rising toll of crashes on our nation's roads and dismayed by the lack of urgency to fix the problem. For this reason, we recently launched an initiative we are calling 30 By 30, a goal to reduce US fatalities 30% by 2030. Achieving this reduction will require a concerted effort by all stakeholders. We will increase our efforts to address risky behaviors, seek opportunities to improve safety for everyone inside and outside the vehicle, and explore ways to make commercial vehicle fleets safer. We ask everybody who cares about the needless loss of life on our roadways, including this committee, to think about what they can contribute to achieving the 30 by 30 goal. Thank you.

Mr Curtis (31:33):

Thank you. You'll notice the freshmen have taken over this committee. And we have. We have it on the agenda, don't we? Yeah.

Senator Blunt Rochester (31:42):

Oh yeah.

Mr Curtis (31:43):

Listen, I'm pleased to be here. John Curtis from Utah. And thank you panel for this important topic, and I think it's fair to say that my constituents share the same frustration that's been articulated here by the back and forth. Mr. Yates, you mentioned in your testimony that the only reason we still have this time change every six months is due to the federal government's inability to decide between standard or daylight savings time, which one is best. Based on your research and your outreach, do you have any indication how many states would opt out and maintain permanent standard time if your proposal for permanent daylight savings time were enacted?

Mr. Yates (32:22):

Thank you Senator for the question. I don't have a specific answer. I can talk to you about some of the conversations that I've had with state legislators including, I don't know if you know Dr. Raymond Ward in Utah, he was the sponsor of the bill there. And he said all of his constituents told him that everybody preferred to stay in permanent daylight time in Utah. Utah might be a case where standard time might be a good option, and that's why I think the two-year implementation would actually be a great chance for everybody in Utah to look at what the-

Mr Curtis (32:57):

So let me jump, let's talk about Utah. You are correct, they've actually passed legislation to stay on permanent daylight savings time, and I guess my question is why shouldn't states have the right to make this decision? Don't they know best about what they want for their constituents? And why aren't we giving more accommodation to states, and particularly Utah, who has spoken so vocally about what they would like?

Mr. Yates (33:24):

I'm sorry, Senator. Are you asking, is there a way that the states could opt out of?

Mr Curtis (33:30):

So my point is states know what's best for them.

Mr. Yates (33:35):

Right.

Mr Curtis (33:35):

Some states like Utah clearly have a preference, and some would go the other way. And I guess my question is, now let me tie that into the next question, is we could see a patchwork, which I suspect might be the answer to that. Now Utah, by the way, we abut Arizona, and so my whole life we have watched Arizona mock us as we all changed our times, and somehow we've navigated that just fine without any problem. And then I'd also bring up, technology is in a very, very different place than it was years ago and our ability to adapt to this, so do you worry about a patchwork or are we okay with that?

Mr. Yates (34:12):

Thank you for the question, Senator. I think that less complexity in the system is better. It's natural to think that there would be a patchwork if we allowed more states stopped into permanent standard time, but we have a patchwork now. What we would be creating is less of a patchwork because the lines might change a little bit, for instance, Indiana for instance may decide that it's better for the whole state of Indiana to be in central time with Chicago, which it abuts and which is a thousand miles from Boston. And so it wouldn't create a patchwork, it would just create a change in where the line is. And so the first and most important thing is decreasing, eliminating the clock-changing, which decreases complexity. And then, once we've got that stability, it won't be a patchwork, it'll just be we know what time it is in Indiana because all of-

Mr Curtis (35:02):

Just the way we've accommodated it with Arizona.

Mr. Yates (35:04):

Exactly.

Mr Curtis (35:05):

And if we're honest, like you point, we already have these lines and they do just fine.

Mr. Yates (35:10):

Exactly.

Mr Curtis (35:11):

And so just for the record, I'm a strong advocate to let my state do what they prefer to do and feel like they know how to make those decisions best. I'm going to use just a little bit of time for actually a very interesting personal question, Dr. Johnson. Given all the effects that we've heard about, what's the likelihood that if somebody had a profession where they were moving across the country twice a week and changing time zones an hour or two hour, or sometimes three hours, that they would be subject to those same problems?

Dr. Karin Johnson (35:44):

So a lot of us can relate to jet lag. One thing that happens with jet lag is you're moving to a new time where the sun is in the sky, and so we adjust to that within a day or two we get to the new time zone depending on how far we're going. What happens with going to permanent daylight savings time is we are changing the clock time but we're not changing the sun, that's why there's this perpetual misalignment that has more stresses and harms to our body over the long run. So very frequent time travel with a lot of adjusts is a big strain on the body, but for most people that don't do it all the time, we do adjust within days and we can get that better health and more alignment of our rhythms within days.

Mr Curtis (36:33):

Unless within days you're going back to the previous time zone.

Dr. Karin Johnson (36:36):

That is why the really frequent, not good.

Mr Curtis (36:38):

All right, I think I've made my point. I'll yield to the ranking member.

Senator Blunt Rochester (36:44):

Thank you to my fellow freshman and classmate, Senator Curtis. And also, thank you to Senator Cantwell for the opportunity to be ranking member today. And I also want to thank the witnesses. This is one of the issues that a lot of times we will get messages from our constituents, people have strong opinions. And I was literally in a meeting before this with a CEO of a company who asked, "Well, what do you think?" And so this is something that does touch on so many, and I want to start my questions with you, Dr. Harkey. Because year-round daylight saving time would mean later sunrises in the mornings, more people may be commuting to work or to school in the dark. Some people have raised concerns that this would put their children at greater risk of being hit by cars while walking to school.

(37:39)
Pedestrians are more likely to be killed in traffic accidents, as you stated, in the dark because it's harder for the drivers to see them. And in the 1970s it was widely reported that mothers raised significant concerns about their children walking to school in the dark in the winter. Nationwide, over 70% of fatal accidents involving pedestrians occur at night. Dr. Harkey, no matter what time the sun goes down, what roadway improvements can cities and states make to reduce pedestrian fatalities?

Dr Harkey (38:14):

Thank you for the question, Senator. That is exactly what our study indicated, is that it's not about the shifting of the time, that we are going to have darkness regardless of which policy decision you make. And so that's what we're looking for, is to try and figure out how do we make pedestrians and bicyclists in particular safer in those dark hours, whether they're in the morning or whether they're in the evening. And for most municipalities and county agencies and state DOTs who are struggling to address this issue, there's two key things, one is space. We have to provide the appropriate space, sidewalks, in rural areas that can be separated paths or possibly paved shoulders even, places for people to walk where they're not in the edge of the travel lane. We also have to take care to provide careful crossings. So we have to pay particular attention to how we're allowing motor vehicles and pedestrians to interact at crosswalks.

(39:20)
These can be at intersections, they can be at mid-block locations, so you have to have appropriate crossings. Pedestrians aren't going to walk too far, they're going to make those decisions to cross in the middle of the road sometimes, and so you want to make sure that you're providing adequate crossings where they want to cross. And then you've got to do all you can to provide the kinds of traffic control devices that will increase motors' yielding behavior. So this includes things like rapid flash beacons, which have been shown to increase motors' yielding behavior sixfold. You can build on that. Adding simple things like lights that are triggered when a pedestrian hits the crosswalk area, it will light up that crosswalk, you can double the amount of motors' yielding behavior. So these are interventions that have been proven over time and it's important for state agencies and local agencies to take advantage of those kinds of interventions and get those implemented anywhere that they have pedestrians.

Senator Blunt Rochester (40:17):

Following along on the safety theme, what vehicle technologies can help protect pedestrians when it's difficult for drivers to see them?

Dr Harkey (40:27):

And so this is another important aspect, and this was what builds on the safe system approach, building that redundancy into the systems. You don't just rely on the infrastructure, you also build technology into the vehicles that can help with this. Two big things that we've studied, one is better headlights. We're the only group in the world that tests headlights the way that we do on our track, and so we've seen improvements in headlights over the years that increase visibility and provide drivers with additional time, they can see that pedestrian further down the roadway. And so that's a big change and we'll continue to push for that. The other is automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection. That also has been shown to work and be very effective at reducing pedestrian crashes in the daytime, and now our testing is really focused on getting automakers to improve those systems to work even better at nighttime. So that's an example of two technologies in the vehicle that can be really, really beneficial.

Senator Blunt Rochester (41:24):

One of the things that I've noticed is that our safety efforts are siloed. You have the Federal Highway Administration, which builds and maintains highways, you have the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which regulates vehicle safety standards and investigates defects, then you've got the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which oversees commercial motor vehicles and trucking industry safety, all working separately. And I think back to what you were talking about, how can we better layer safety measures to help stop deadly crashes?

Dr Harkey (42:05):

Yeah, you're absolutely right. And so build on top of the separation in the federal agencies that you just discussed, along with them you have state DOTs, you have county DOTs, you have city DOTs, and so it becomes quite the web of how you make decisions when it comes to road safety. One of the things that we have to do a better job of is communicating between those agencies deliberately. And so there is no single authority of the ones that you mentioned that has complete authority over every decision on our roadway system when it comes to safety. And so these agencies have to do a better job of communicating together deliberately, and not just at the executive level but at the staff level, because it's at the staff level where people know what interventions work best and how to apply those in a way that you create that redundancy in the system that we were talking about. So whether it's infrastructure, whether it's vehicle, whether it's changing behaviors, that communication amongst the staff is absolutely critical.

Senator Blunt Rochester (43:08):

Great. Thank you, and I was really interested to hear about your 30 By 30. So in the interest of time, I will yield back to the chairman.

Mr. Cruz (43:19):

Thank you very much, and I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here on what is a very interesting topic and important topic and complex topic. There are very real and complicated issues and countervailing arguments on both sides. I think there is widespread agreement on locking the clock, but where to lock it? The reason we're holding these hearings is because these are real arguments and they have real impacts on people. Let me start on the health side. Dr. Johnson, can you expand on the impact sleep deprivation has on our overall health, on our minds, our moods, and especially on young children for whom we know sleep is so vital?

Dr. Karin Johnson (44:06):

Thank you for asking about that. Yeah, sleep has different aspects. So one is just how much we sleep, but it's the quality of sleep and then the timing of sleep. So any disturbance in that can affect how we do. So we know that kids, even if over a whole week they get enough sleep, if they don't get enough during the week and catch up on the weekend, they still don't do as well. And so sleep and our circadian rhythms, they really regulate every aspect of our body, our metabolism, they affect how we think about things, they affect our choices of food. You're more likely to grab a celery stick when you had got enough sleep, but grab that bagel or that candy bar when you're sleep-deprived. Athletic performance we know is better when people do sleep, academic success in school. And then, mental health has some of the most deep connections to sleep health.

(45:06)
And that's why even though people feel better when they see light, it's that timing of light in our circadian rhythms that is so deeply intertwined that if we can improve sleep, if we can improve those rhythms, we see those lower rates of depression overall, we see lower rates of suicide. And that's what the data, there was just a new say that came out just last week showing 6% higher rates of depression when the sun rises are set later, when we lose that critical morning light. And this gets exponentially worse in the winter when you lose the light in the morning. So Texas and the southern states actually lose that morning light for a longer period because of the curve of the earth, the more even days. You get three to four months with it being dark after 8 AM. And some of the darkest places

Dr. Karin Johnson (46:00):

Places in the country are actually in Western Texas if we were to go to permanent daylight savings time. And that's why in 1974, a lot of the push to end our experiment with daylight savings time was actually pushed by states like Florida and Texas and the southern states.

Mr. Cruz (46:17):

Can you also explain why consistent sleep patterns are important for teen brain development and mental health?

Dr. Karin Johnson (46:25):

Yeah, so again, this goes back to our circadian rhythms, and so better, so when our circadian rhythms are working well, they help us anticipate our day. And so what I mean by that is we have certain times when our body wants to go to sleep. Teenagers, their natural rhythm is later. If any of you have been around a teenager, you can't just say, "Go to bed." They're like, "I'm wide awake." We have this, what we call a forbidden zone. Their alertness just is skyrocketing in that time before bed, and so they can't get to sleep on time. But if our social schedule is set an hour earlier, which is what daylight savings time does, they don't have that opportunity to get the amount of sleep they need and they tend to switch back and forth on weekends. And that switching affects us. And so that then affects how our brain functions.

(47:18)
We know more and more about sleep being important for clearing toxins from our brain, which sets us up for things like dementia, Parkinson's disease. I just came back from the Neuro conference with data being, pointing to the connections there. Our metabolism gets off, so we're more likely to gain weight. Again, even if people do exercise more, we see like 10% higher rates of obesity in places where the sun sets later. So sleep is so critically important for our metabolic health, our overall health, our mental health, how our brain functions, which affects the safety issues. The highway study, it found a higher risk of vehicle clashes even though it was light later. The effect of sleep is more powerful than almost anything else. And by aligning the sun, we can really help that.

Mr. Cruz (48:12):

So let's talk a little bit about the idea of state's rights. And I've heard from groups on both sides of this issue that want either permanent standard time or permanent daylight savings time. Almost everyone agrees that changing the clock twice a year doesn't make sense. Mr. Yates, in your opening statement, you said that setting the clock is fundamentally a state's rights issue. Why do you think that decision should be left to the states?

Mr. Yates (48:43):

Thank you for the question, Senator. The main reason is geography, right? We live on this big round ball and the sun is moving, and the difference in where each state is makes a big difference in how the sunrise and sunset time applies. And so to say that there is one solution that is exactly right for Texas and the exact same solution is right for Atlanta, for Georgia is what I would posit overreach by the federal government. And I might even go back to the example that is often cited about when the time change happened in the seventies. And just to give a little context to why that was such a failure, it's often cited that people didn't like it because there were children that were put at risk in the dark waiting for school. It turns out a lot of that is apocryphal, as we've heard pedestrians are much safer with more light later in the day.

(49:47)
But the thing that is interesting about that time change was, and this shows you how different politics was back in those days, that law was signed into law on December 15th, 1973, right in the middle of Watergate. You could say that maybe it was a distraction from other things that were going on, but it was enacted on December 15th, on a Saturday it was enacted. It took place on January 6th, 1974, about three weeks later. So you can imagine the worst Monday of the year already is the one after the holiday break where you have to go back to school and everything. To have an extra hour of sleep robbed away right before that, you can understand why it was so unpopular and why it was repealed two months after Nixon resigned office. So it clearly doesn't work for the federal government to come and say, "This is a mandate of exactly what we should do for all of the country all at the same time."

(50:42)
But it is the place of the Commerce committee to say we need a well-regulated time system. And so it makes sense to get rid of the clock changing. And if we give two years to the states to be able to say so that all of these arguments can be hashed out, and they're all valid arguments, but they can be hashed out in the geography of the place where it would actually apply and they would have time to plan and figure out what is the appropriate time for school to start to take in this evidence from neurologists, and what is the best time for all of the businesses to operate.

Mr. Cruz (51:12):

So maybe if we had more daylight, the Watergate break-in doesn't happen and history would be different. Dr. Johnson, you seem to disagree with having states decide on how they should lock the clock. In your judgment, why do you think that would be the wrong approach?

Dr. Karin Johnson (51:27):

So time is a measure. So Congress has the control over setting measures. I think of my husband, he likes to make a joke. He's 6'6" in the morning and 6'5" in the afternoon. We don't change the length of a foot on his diurnal pattern of his height. Time is supposed to say how the sun is moving through the sky. And so if we set it to a standard time of the sun being closer to overhead at noon, now that's something we can go by. But states then can decide how they want to set their social schedules. So instead of sort of tricking people into, you all have to get up early no matter what, let's have each state decide when they want their schools to start, when businesses want to start. But let's fix a measure of time that actually has a meaning where the sun is overhead, and then adjust the social schedule around it. And that is definitely something the state should decide on.

Mr. Cruz (52:32):

Thank you. Senator Lujan.

Mr. Lujan (52:35):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today. Dr. Johnson, thank you for joining us today. I saw that the American Academy of Neurology sent the committee a letter encouraging us to consider that standard time, not daylight savings time, is the best to align with our body's natural clocks. Many people still sleep through the morning light or after the early sun rises. Does that mean that light is being wasted if they are not using it awake?

Dr. Karin Johnson (53:07):

So light helps us get up. Most people will wake up naturally after light. Now, some people, my teenagers could easily sleep until noon, and that makes them actually more likely shift their schedules even later. So when you miss morning light, which is needed to reset your rhythm, or if you get too much light in the evenings, you drift later and have even more trouble getting up in the morning. And so that's why if we actually set it so the sun is rising earlier in the morning, more people will actually naturally, because their circadian rhythms start saying get up on time, rather than get up so late, will be able to be ready for the day, be able to have their circadian rhythms, help their health, help their metabolism, which is going to be good for heart disease, stroke risk, dementia risk, all these other sort of chronic health problems.

Mr. Lujan (54:03):

I appreciate that. To all the panelists, what does this mean for New Mexico, for our farmers, school children and teenagers, the elderly workers and tourism and recreation? What would permanent daylight standard time of permanent standard time mean for these communities? One or the other, I apologize, not or. Mr. Yates?

Mr. Yates (54:30):

Senator, thank you for the question. New Mexico is another real leader in early movements to try to lock the clock. State Senator Cliff Pirtle worked on this. I worked with him closely for a long time. The effects on everybody in New Mexico of the clock changing is the same, which is it's very disruptive. It's not disruptive equally for everybody, but for a lot of people it is. A lot of all the things that we've cited, all the different health studies show that the thing that I've been advocating today about the two-year implementation period would be especially helpful for New Mexico because you have a tricky little trade region where you, about West Texas, which is in the mountain time zone, and part of Mexico. And so there's a region where interstate commerce is directly affected. And so all of Mexico recently decided to lock the clock, except for the part that is attached to West Texas and New Mexico. And so these issues of commerce are complicated and do take a little while to work out. So that's the one thing I would say is that that sort of thing should be addressed carefully.

Mr. Lujan (55:38):

Mr. Karen?

Mr. Karen (55:39):

I would say that the golf courses in New Mexico, which enjoy mostly afternoon and evening light, all the great hiking that goes on in New Mexico, the rock climbing, the hot air ballooning, all of that would be seriously curbed if daylight saving time was removed. And that would be, I think a detriment to the New Mexico economy and people's time and ability to get outside and enjoy what you have.

Mr. Lujan (56:07):

You're suggesting that people hike and golf in the morning?

Mr. Karen (56:11):

No, they do all that in the afternoon. And if standard time was made permanent, they would feel forced to do it in the morning, but they have to go to school, they have to go to work, and I don't think they would be able to make that shift.

Mr. Lujan (56:24):

Appreciate that. Dr. Johnson?

Dr. Karin Johnson (56:27):

Yeah, I would say if anything, you have a neighboring state, Arizona, that does very well on standard time and has shown that the golf industry can thrive. If anything, a lot of people say, and one of the reasons Arizona says they stayed on standard time is because it gets too hot later. So a lot of people do like to do exercise later, and that often is actually a better time for our health to get our exercise in. So if we can get people up so that they can be more active in the morning and get this exercise and enjoy all the wonderful things like hiking, which I know when I've gone to places like New Mexico, I do it in the morning, I think that we can still have all these activities on either time. But I think standard time is the healthier choice.

Mr. Lujan (57:09):

Dr. Harkey.

Dr Harkey (57:12):

So our work was looking at fatality data nationally rather than by individual states, in part due to sample size. But if the patterns hold in New Mexico just like they have in our research across the country, then we're going to see an offset between the number of motor vehicle occupant deaths that have risen slightly during the time change periods, and pedestrian and bicyclists deaths that have decreased slightly during that same time period. And so the net effect is one of really no change when we look at road safety data alone. And so if you're trying to make this decision on the basis of just road safety, I don't think the results of our study are going to point you in one direction or the other.

Mr. Lujan (57:59):

As a follow- up to that, Dr. Harkey, Dr. Johnson pointed to a study from a professor at Eastern New Mexico University, Jeff Gentry, who showed 20% higher car crashes in locations where sunrises and sunsets are later. Now, I understand your point that darkness is a key measure of accidents, but this data shows me that sleep effects are powerful indicators as well. How do you view the risk of sleep deprivation on accidents versus risks from darkness?

Dr Harkey (58:28):

So our study did not look specifically at that particular issue. I know other studies have. Methodologies differ. Most of the studies that have tried to look strictly at that small amount of time change before and after in the crashes concur that the real issue here is the amount of ambient light and the time of day when it occurs that darkness is the real key, and you just need to make sure that you're providing good safety interventions to address issues of darkness. So whether that is improving technologies in the vehicle such as headlights, automatic emergency braking, or whether it's you're putting in infrastructure measures that add more lighting, add more space for pedestrians and bicyclists to keep them separated from motorists, whatever you can do to reduce those conflicts in the darkness and improve awareness of other road users in the darkness will be beneficial regardless of the time change.

Mr. Lujan (59:20):

It sounds like you support my legislation to require technology be installed in vehicles to prevent impaired crashes. So I'll take that as well. We'll share that with my colleagues. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question for Mr. Yates on standard time versus daylight savings. I'll just submit it into the record. And just to note to the panelists, the reason I'm asking so much about sleep is, as my colleagues know, I suffered a stroke three years ago. I've learned a lot about the importance of sleep. I definitely lived my life burning the candle at both ends, and now I do my due diligence to embrace sleep, hygiene, and all the rest. And so that's bearing a lot into this conversation that I'm having with my constituents and others, Mr. Chairman. So I very much appreciate this hearing. Thank y'all for being here.

Mr. Cruz (01:00:03):

Thank you. Senator Young.

Senator Young (01:00:06):

Well, I thank all of you for being here. I'm the senior center from the state of Indiana, and we have quite a history with daylight savings time. For those of you who have consumed old Parks and Rec episodes, you may have seen the one that focused on this particular topic. But let me walk through some of the things that have transpired in our state, and I'll weave in there some of the unique perspectives that Hoosiers have brought to this. Until 2006, our state was chronologically divided, you might say, with some counties observing daylight savings time and others not. And then in 2006, after years of debate, furious debate, our state decided to become the 48th state to adopt daylight savings time. In central Indiana on the shortest day of the year, December 21st, the sun currently rises at 8:02 AM and sets at 5:23 PM. Under permanent daylight savings time, sunrise would be delayed until 9:02 AM, meaning Hoosiers would begin their day in darkness for much of the winter.

(01:01:21)
What works for East Coast states, I'm hearing from many of my constituents might not work for states like Indiana. We have 12 counties in the western part of the state that are in the central time zone. So Evansville, Indiana, if you're familiar with that, you got up near Chicago, what we call the region affectionately. And so there are 80 other counties that are in the Eastern Time Zone. So this sort of suggests that maybe a one-size-fits-all national policy on time changes doesn't take into account the regional differences that significantly impact daily life. I understand we have a charge, Article One, Section Eight, to facilitate interstate commerce. That was one of the major arguments of facilitating interstate commerce from the state level when we had this debate.

(01:02:17)
So I anticipate we've heard that. I anticipate I'll hear more of that from my colleagues, but that has to be balanced against other considerations of course. Leaving this decision to the states might allow local leaders who best understand their communities to weigh the specific needs of their residents. States along this line of argument are in a better position to evaluate how changes in daylight hours affect school schedules, commuting patterns, public safety and economic activity. So I guess to the panel, do you believe that states like Indiana with their unique cultures and geographical challenges and even histories as it relates to this issue, should have the flexibility to make their own decision? Or do you think this decision should be standardized across the country? We'll begin with Mr. Yates, and I'll give everyone an opportunity to speak to that if you like. Yes sir.

Mr. Yates (01:03:19):

Thank you, Senator Young, for the question. And I mentioned Indiana in my opening statement because it's a perfect example of why the Commerce Committee needs to approach this carefully, because to impose onto Indiana a solution that is the same as for New York and for New England is not the best interest of the people of Indiana and is a little bit rude. The one thing that I might say though is that I've never been to Indiana to testify, but I did go to Michigan to testify about their daylight saving time bill. And I went to Nebraska and to Kansas, which are states like Indiana on the western edge of their time zones, and would make the most sense for them to be in standard time.

(01:03:59)
And I advocated for that with the state senators and state representatives in those states, and all of them told me that all of their constituents don't care. They would rather, in the middle of the winter, they're already going to school and going to work in the dark, and they would just like to have a little bit of time after school and after work to be in the light. So I said, "Okay, this is your state. You get to pick."

Senator Young (01:04:24):

Thank you for your response. Mr. Karen?

Mr. Karen (01:04:27):

Well, I'm no constitutional scholar for sure, but I don't see in the constitution where it says that the federal government regulates time. I don't know if time falls under commerce, so it would naturally fall to the states if the federal government's not empowered to do so.

Senator Young (01:04:41):

We have the view that everything falls under commerce.

Mr. Karen (01:04:44):

I appreciate that. I will say I feel it's less of a state issue than it feels like a personal issue, and the ability to do, for example, to Senator Lujan's comments, I can't simulate or practice sleep hygiene whether the sun is up or down, but I can't simulate sun hygiene. I can't light the world when we want to be out there when it's dark. And so I think to me, it comes down to which choice, if you were to land on one, is going to be harder to adjust to. We are already on daylight saving time for eight months, so we'd have to adjust for four months. If you reverse it, then we're adjusting eight months of our calendar.

Senator Young (01:05:29):

Thank you, sir. Dr. Johnson, would you like to say something?

Dr. Karin Johnson (01:05:32):

Yeah, I want to talk about the western edge of time zones, states like yours are more aligned with central time zones. So already on standard time, your sun is going to be overhead closer to one. When we go to daylight savings time, now it's closer to two. And we see that this really impacts health risks, mental health risks, safety risks, how kids do in school. I want to highlight one Indiana study. When you guys ended going the parts of the state that were on standard time-

Senator Young (01:06:06):

Wait, you're coming with, you're citing a study? Are we allowed to do that in this? Is that consistent with the rules, Chairman Cruz? I'm kidding of course.

Dr. Karin Johnson (01:06:17):

So when part of Indiana ended standard time and went to seasonal daylight savings time, they found that kids' high school test scores were actually much better when they were on standard time and dropped when they switched to even seasonal daylight savings time. And that's not adding the exponential harms of bringing those 9:00 AM sunrises, like you said. So we would love every place to be more in line with the sun. And as you said, states have different needs to get closer to that ideal.

Senator Young (01:06:52):

Thank you, Doctor. Dr. Harkey?

Dr Harkey (01:06:56):

So we didn't have a preference in our study for one time or the other in terms of how you set it. What our study showed was that the risk of fatalities for pedestrians and bicyclists in particular rises at night, and it rises for all motorists as well at night. So the real key is regardless of which decision you make and which time zone you use, you've got to make sure that you're putting interventions in that it's going to help with those who are traveling in those dark hours, whether it is more in the morning or more in the afternoon and evening. That's the real key. And particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists who are the overwhelming number of fatalities that are occurring in those dark hours.

Senator Young (01:07:44):

I see. I'm very much over time. I see that Mr. Karen has something he wants to say, so I've been given lead by the chairman. Please go ahead. Yes sir.

Mr. Karen (01:07:55):

I just want to point out that Senator Scott's bill, the Sunshine Protection Act kind of threads the needle. It creates a federal daylight saving time, but allows every state to opt out if they chose. So I think that's maybe the best answer here.

Senator Young (01:08:11):

Good point. All right, thank you. Chairman.

Mr. Cruz (01:08:13):

Thank you. Senator Markey.

Senator Markey (01:08:15):

Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. So it's 1985, it's my fifth term in the United States House of Representatives, and I become the chairman of the Energy Subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee. And searching through the jurisdiction of this wonderful subcommittee is time. I guess somebody's going to have to be chairman over time. And it's me. I'm chairman of time, and nothing had been driving me crazier than the birds chirping at 5:00 AM in the morning. It's sunshine out. It's the end of April. This is not good.

Senator Markey (01:09:00):

So I began a negotiation with Bill Goodling, who was a Republican from Pennsylvania to move time, and it was a hard grudging discussion, but I was able to move it from the end of April to the beginning of April in 1986. And so that changed it because at that point it was six months Daylight, six months Standard. So I was able to claw back three weeks pretty much to right now. And otherwise we'd still be another two or three weeks where there's no Daylight Savings Time.

(01:09:38)
Then Congressman Goodling left, and so in 2005, I'm still on the Energy Subcommittee. So with Fred Upton, who was a Republican from Michigan, we cut another deal and we moved it to the beginning of March and we also said, "Let's put Halloween in Daylight Savings Time." And so we moved it into the beginning of November. So at that point, I'm at eight Daylight, four Standard. Okay. So I'm kind of proud of my two bills changing time. They started to call me the Sun King, which I was kind of proud of.

(01:10:17)
He goes, "Those are big bills, Mr. Chairman. That's moving time." And the whole world then starts to move to that standard. Well, we had to stop there. And then two years ago, Senator Rubio and I, we had a bill to do Daylight Savings Time year round and it passed by unanimous consent out on the floor of the Senate. It was installed in the House, never had a vote over there. But I consider this kind of an inexorable march towards more sunshine that people can enjoy, not while they're asleep, having the sun come in early in the morning.

(01:11:04)
So that's my goal. My goal is just to make sure people get more sunshine in the evening when they can use it. Especially as I've heard your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, as our economy has changed and we're not an agricultural predominant economy any longer, although farmers play a vital role in our society, but we're more into the economy that we all live in today. So I guess my first question, Mr. Karen, is how would extending evening daylight support small businesses in your industry?

Mr. Karen (01:11:41):

It would add to the golf industry at least $1 billion of economic activity. The average golf course would see an increase in approximately $250,000 in revenue. I mean, that's an economic argument, but the golfers around America, the 30 million golfers would get to enjoy all of that. So that's the argument,

Senator Markey (01:12:00):

Right. But it's also true that, let's just go back to 1986. It's hard to start your little league practices if it's still dark in the evening at the end of April, kids are still not going to be allowed out into the dark or you playing tennis or walking around. So that change was very important, was it not-

Mr. Karen (01:12:18):

Yes. Yes.

Senator Markey (01:12:20):

… in '86, and then again in 2001?

Mr. Karen (01:12:21):

My, my, my brother happens to be an athletic director at a high school, and he said, "We don't like having to spend money on lights for every single activity that happens after school."

Senator Markey (01:12:29):

Yeah. So would an additional hour of evening sunlight help businesses save money on energy costs from not having to turn the lights on early, much less athletic?

Mr. Karen (01:12:39):

Well, golf, we don't light the golf courses, so it wouldn't be an energy savings for us. It's mostly about a health and economic.

Senator Markey (01:12:45):

Health and economic. Yeah. And Mr. Yates, what does your research say about the benefits of ending the switch twice a year between Daylight Savings Time and Standard Time?

Mr. Yates (01:12:57):

Thank you, Senator, for the question, and I appreciate the nickname that you got. It's better than the nickname that the Comedy Central, the Daily Show called me the Time Wizard. And so I wasn't sure if I should be offended or-

Senator Markey (01:13:10):

I'm going to keep Sun King for myself.

Mr. Yates (01:13:12):

Yeah. Sun King is way better than Time Wizard.

Senator Markey (01:13:13):

[inaudible 01:13:14]

Mr. Yates (01:13:14):

Yeah. The detrimental effects of switching the clocks are super clear and it seems like we've got pretty much unanimous agreement about that at this point. And what's delightful about it from my perspective, is to hear you tell these stories because you clearly have been a pioneer on this for a long time. And what's great is that this has never been at all a partisan issue. It's always been a completely bipartisan issue. When you look at the 24 states that have enacted something to-

Senator Markey (01:13:44):

And can I say this as well? An opposition has always been bipartisan.

Mr. Yates (01:13:48):

Yeah.

Senator Markey (01:13:48):

Because I had to negotiate with Representative Goodling who's a Republican on the other side, but I had a Republican, Carlos Moorhead from Orange County was on my side, a Republican, and I had to negotiate with Larry Craig, who was senator from Idaho. He was the senator before Jim Risch. So I had to negotiate with him on this. He was an opposition, but I had Fred Upton from Michigan who was a supporter.

(01:14:14)
So it's always been bipartisan on either side, these coalitions that are there. And so that's the only way from my perspective, that we're going to be able to work here as well in order to make some progress. And we just have to make Daylight Savings Time permanent, in my opinion, one way or the other, or at least get more. We need more sunshine.

(01:14:40)
And the reason, Mr. Chairman, it's from my perspective, when the sun's out, it just increases the likelihood that the corners of people's mouths are going to be turned upwards. They're going to be happier when the sun's out. They're going to be feeling good. That's why so many people moved to Texas, by the way, Florida.

(01:14:59)
It's not the politics, it's the sun they're chasing. Right? So this is, from my perspective, a universal feeling that when that sun's out and they can go out and enjoy it in the evening, it just makes all the difference in the world to them. And so we have to find a way here of resolving these issues to be able to deal with it.

(01:15:23)
And I know the disagreements on it, including, I know Karen Johnson's here from Massachusetts and she's on the other side of the issue, which I respect. So it's just a big conversation that I hope we can resolve because I just think it's for the benefit of people's happiness just to have that sunshine available. They can do a lot more in the sunshine in the evening than they can do early in the morning. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here.

Mr. Cruz (01:15:54):

Thank you, Your Majesty. And I will say I did not know that my friend from Massachusetts had acquired the nickname the Sun King, which the previous Sun King, of course, was King Louis XIV in France, whose best-known statement was [foreign language 01:16:16], I am the state, which may explain the differences between Senator Markey and myself on the size of government.

Senator Markey (01:16:24):

Well, I think President Trump is quoting King Louis very favorably.

Mr. Cruz (01:16:33):

That's a fair point since he did in fact tweet out Louis.

Senator Markey (01:16:39):

[foreign language 01:16:37]. I didn't know he knew French, but I think he in fact did, in fact quote favorably, not even… As you are. You're doing it with a very high risible coefficient. You're doing it jokingly. I think he was serious. Although I will say this, I think you gave the president good advice two days ago of acting… We'll call it more like King Louis then.

Mr. Cruz (01:17:03):

Well, I will note, as you know, I lived three years in Massachusetts and I remember my third year of law school where it snowed in the month of May, which I thought was positively immoral. And as you noted, the sun is a very good recruiter for the great state of Texas. I'm fond of saying you can't shovel sunshine and that is-

Senator Markey (01:17:24):

I'll give you some news that the winters in Boston are now six degrees warmer than they were in 1970 because of climate change. So our ponds don't even freeze over in the winter anymore, much less snowing in May. So maybe kids from Texas going to law school up in Boston now enjoy May a lot more than they used to.

Mr. Cruz (01:17:47):

All right. So I'm going to ask a couple more questions and then we're going to wrap up the hearing. Mr. Karen, give us your best argument why recreational daylight is so important to your members.

Mr. Karen (01:18:05):

My members deliver joy for a living and they happen to run businesses making that happen. So to them, if they saw more people in the afternoons and the evenings enjoying the outdoors with each other, it's why they get out of bed. It's why they do this. So they'll have better lives as business owners. They'll be able to pay the bills a little bit better and reinvest in their businesses if they had a little bit of a boost more in the afternoons and evenings.

Mr. Cruz (01:18:35):

That was helpful. Although I will say on the delivering joy, I couldn't help but think, I think the best comedy riff ever done which is Robin Williams's own golf.

Mr. Karen (01:18:45):

Oh, I've seen it.

Mr. Cruz (01:18:46):

Which I will note is profane, but screamingly funny and he points out that golf was invented by the Scots and how infuriating it can be at time. And he said, "I know we'll call it a stroke because when you miss, you want to have a stroke."

Mr. Karen (01:19:07):

Very good.

Mr. Cruz (01:19:08):

All right, Dr. Johnson? Would shifting time zones slightly address the concerns for communities that are in dark zone areas if the clock were permanently set on Daylight Savings Times? Does shifting the time zones make a difference?

Dr. Karin Johnson (01:19:31):

So we would encourage all states to be within their sort of time zone that is closest to the sun being overhead at noon. So for example, like Indiana being more in the Central Time zone versus the Eastern Time zone would help get them more aligned with the sun, but it should be Standard Time. So there has been a push on the East coast to have us in Atlantic Standard Time.

(01:19:56)
That is the time set for Bermuda. That is not the time set for any of the East Coast, so we want permanent Standard Eastern Time, not permanent Standard Atlantic Time, which is the exact same as permanent Daylight Savings Time.

Mr. Cruz (01:20:13):

Dr. Harkey, what has your research found as it relates to traffic accidents immediately following a time change?

Dr Harkey (01:20:23):

So that's what we were looking at as part of our research was in that five-week period, before and the five-week period after the time change. And when we fall back in the fall, vehicle occupant deaths go down about 7%, and when they spring forward, vehicle occupant deaths go up about 12% and the exact opposite with pedestrian and fatalities.

(01:20:48)
So when we fall back, pedestrian and fatalities rise 13% and then when we spring forward, they go down 24%. And so the net effect is almost zero between pedestrian and vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclists and vehicle deaths. And so that's why our research really doesn't come out strongly in favor of either one. But what's clear is that darkness matters. And that's where we do about a quarter of our travel at night, and yet that's when 50% of the vehicle occupant deaths occur and when more than three-quarters of the pedestrian deaths occur.

(01:21:28)
So regardless of what policy decision is made with regards to the time and where we set the clocks, we have to make sure we're continuing to improve our infrastructure, continuing to improve vehicle technology that will address the safety risk that we have at night in dark conditions.

Mr. Cruz (01:21:47):

So you just said darkness mattered and it occurred to me an alternative title for this hearing instead of if we could turn back time might've been, "Hello, Darkness, my old friend."

(01:21:59)
All right. Look, this hearing was important and I wanted to hear all this testimony because I personally struggle with the two choices here because it's a question of what do you care about more sunshine and joy and fun and money or health, mental health, physical health? And the honest answer for most people is, "Gosh, I care about all that stuff." So that that's not an easy trade-off.

(01:22:26)
The alternative that has been suggested is let each state make that decision. And I guess it's been pointed out that Senator Scott's bill does a version of that by picking Daylight Savings Times, but then letting states opt out. Let me ask, as a practical matter, does that work? Functionally, how confusing is that having everyone pick different times? How does that work for commerce, for life, for knowing what the hell time it's? Let me have each of you answer that.

Mr. Yates (01:23:02):

Senator Cruz, thank you for that. The one little part of Senator Markey's history about when they changed the time in November was that the proposal was to move Daylight Saving Time to finish at the end of November, and the airlines came back and said, "No. No. No. No. We don't want a time change in the middle of our busiest travel season."

(01:23:22)
And so they were going to scrap that and then they got the extra week to put it in. So time is always complicated and the system that we have is complicated, but it's complicated because it is a human creation. The sun moving around the earth doesn't actually have anything to do with time. Time is the agreement that we have about what 10 o'clock means because we don't want to go around saying the committee hearing will start when the sun is two hands above the horizon. We need the system, but the system has this bug right now and the bug is Daylight Saving Time. It's the switching of the clocks.

(01:24:01)
And so if we have a little bit of time, a couple of years so that the individual states can address all of these complexities and make those decisions, then we will be able to get rid of this bug permanently. It's something that we've been stuck with since World War I, and this is our opportunity to finally fix it.

Mr. Cruz (01:24:18):

Mr. Karen?

Mr. Karen (01:24:18):

I am not going to say that government solutions cause more confusion, but you can imagine in this scenario that Florida's on Daylight Saving Time, Georgia right above it is on Standard, South Carolina is on Daylight, et cetera. In the same spot because maybe special interests of all kinds made that happen.

(01:24:40)
So I already have problems remembering which state is in which time zone as it is right now, sometimes the border states. To add to that, "Oh, they're in Central and they're on Standard. Oh, what time is it there exactly?" So I can see where this causes more confusion. I wish I had a better answer for you on that one, but could we adjust and figure that out quickly? I don't know. I see it as problematic, but it may be the only way to thread the needle.

Mr. Cruz (01:25:06):

Dr. Johnson?

Dr. Karin Johnson (01:25:07):

Yeah. I think the economy, the transportation industry certainly needs consistency and alignment. So we want to make this change once. We don't want to pick something that's tried and been failed twice before, such that we spend lots of money again in a few years.

(01:25:24)
You mentioned the economy, which again is so important and the majority of our workers start work early. The average work start time is 7:55 in the morning. So we'd be forcing people all winter to go to work in the dark, really affecting their productivity and economics. And so while certain businesses are going to have different benefits of the sun, I actually do want to give sun to people when they use it, when they use it to get up, when they use it to be healthy, when they use it to be more productive and efficient at work and to improve the overall economy, not just niche businesses like the golf industry that have shown they can be very successful in Standard Time like in Arizona.

Mr. Cruz (01:26:13):

Dr. Harkey?

Dr Harkey (01:26:14):

Strictly speaking from a road safety perspective, I'm not sure it would make any difference if states had the right to select the time because again, it's about the amount of light, the amount of ambient light during the times of travel. And so I don't think it would have an impact. Personally, it would probably confuse me, but we had that problem. I'll give you a quick anecdote.

(01:26:38)
Almost 40 years ago we were collecting speed data in New Mexico and Arizona as part of a research study, had no idea at that time being right out of school hadn't really paid attention that Arizona did not bother to go to Daylight Savings Times. All of our equipment was an hour off when we went to pick up all the speed data and we had to adjust it after the fact.

(01:26:56)
And so I think you would have those kinds of things that could work their way into the system, unintentional mistakes if we were to get into a system where we had a lot of different time zones going on.

Mr. Cruz (01:27:09):

Well, I for one am thankful for these magic devices that we carry, that when I land on a plane, I look down to figure out what time it is because I'm on a lot of planes and it changes. I want to thank each of the four of you. This has been very helpful testimony and you all have different perspectives, so each of you has added significantly to it.

(01:27:28)
Senators will have until the close of business on Thursday, April 17th to submit questions for the record. The witnesses will have until the end of the day on Thursday, May 1st to respond to those questions. And this concludes today's hearing. The committee stands adjourned.