Mr. PYNE. That is right. Senator MCGEE. Are those fixed now by solar time? Mr. PYNE. There is a little complication on daylight saving time, but I think the legal concept of daylight saving time is usually that when we change to daylight saving, that particular Sunday has only 23 hours and the following October, it is made up by the particular Sunday having 25 hours. Senator MCGEE. Not being a lawyer, I will have to speak a little out of turn, but I wondered whether for legal purposes, the time was fixed by the clock or by the calculation of solar time? I just fail to follow the suggestion that this would lead to legal complications. I would like to get a straight answer on this and see what complications would come from a uniform time system from coast to coast with proper reservations for Alaska and Hawaii. Mr. PYNE. You would have to determine first what days you would use for a time of that sort, whether you would conceive that the day in each place might be different or whether it should be the days of the time-basing point, or whatever the date at such a point would be. Senator MCGEE. I may not appreciate that enough but I would think if you calculated that by the clock, as we do now, that it would resolve that phase of the problem. What about the other phase of it that you suggest in terms of the habits and the customs and all that sort of thing of the people? We have that problem now, don't we? Mr. PYNE. Well, you would have a terrific wrench in the customs if you tried getting people up say, at a particular hour in San Francisco, Calif., under your proposed time, which might be an hour and a half or an hour and three-quarters ahead of their usual time by the sun. Senator MCGEE. Hour and a half at most, I would propose, just for the sake of discussion. Wouldn't that adjustment only occur once? Mr. PYNE. That adjustment would occur not only once, but it would continue every day. The man in San Francisco, Calif., the one who was usually in the habit of arising at 6 o'clock in the morning, would be getting up at 4:30. Senator MCGEE. On the west coast it would be 7:30. Mr. PYNE. On the east coast it would be the other way around. Senator MCGEE. But actually it would be 6 o'clock on the clock and he lives by the clock now, I presume, rather than by the sun or by some other calculation. I would think the adjustment would only have to come once with the exception of the extremes of the daylight hours and this, I think, leaves one with some considerable concern. How would you balance out the daylight hours equitably between the two coasts? I don't know whether you would have to calculate this from an arbitrary daylight time beginning or whether you could do it on standard time calculations. I can see some difficulties there but one section would benefit at one time of the year and the other coast the other time of the year. Mr. PYNE. I don't think that would be true at all. One would get a long morning every part of the year, that is, longer than they do now and the other coast would get a long evening, longer than they have now, but that would apply year round. Mr. WALRATH. This doesn't bear on the merits, Mr. Chairman, but it illustrates the problem that Alaskans have when we put them legally in one time zone and by popular acclaim, they have shifted to four. Senator MCGEE. This, of course, addresses itself also to the plight of the traveler. They said yesterday, I believe, we have 120 million every year in this country, traveling someplace, so you would have this accommodation for the traveler and I daresay we are going to get more mobile rather than less mobile. I am wondering whether the so-called customs of another century maybe couldn't be more than balanced off with the custom that we are going to have to acclimate ourselves to a world that is shrinking as fast as this one is shrinking. It isn't going to solve it beyond the borders of our country at least for the time being and that would pose other questions. Mr. WALRATH. Are you suggesting the same time of day in all parts of the world perhaps as the ultimate? Senator MCGEE. I think that would pose difficulties because of the solar question. I am not sure how far you can carry this. You can reduce it to an absurdity by carrying it far enough. We do have a land mass that would lend itself to this, since most of our movement overwhelmingly, I suppose 95 percent of it, would be within the continental United States. But the reason I raise it stems from the questions that Mr. Pyne and I were discussing earlier and that is that we are just nibbling along the edges of this question of how are we going to try to simplify our time problem in the country? We may even be stepping backward a little bit. It is conceivable, if you assume the worst, as far as what is possible under the legislation, we are not really going to the central question which is how we can make our time problem as simple as possible without doing violence to nature. I think one of the things that we have overlooked here is that something that has already been universally set, quite even beyond the control of State governments, with all due respect to them, we are trying to resolve in a State versus Federal versus local sort of way, and I think this does violence to the system in the very beginning. Therefore we ought to make one kind of decision now and do it right. Mr. PYNE. If you can get by with it, more power to you, but we have been urging that for 32 years now in Congress and our ideals have sort of been lost because dozens of bills that we have sponsored through those years have just gotten no farther than committees and, of course, there was the ideal approach in each case. We usually had two bills and one said that everybody shall observe standard time throughout the year and the other said that everyone shall observe standard time with daylight saving for so many months in a set period and none of those came close to being enacted. As a matter of fact, we finally decided that with the bicameral legislature we have here, the one bill just would never get through the House and the other bill would never get through the Senate and the result is we have never gotten anywhere with any of the bills and we have come up with this compromise. Now if you can persuade the Senate to pass a bill that does something definitely about it and get the House to go along with it, I am sure the Commission would welcome it. Senator MCGEE. I think in recent history, we can get anything through the Senate. The problem is elsewhere. But, you make a real good point there. Mr. PYNE. It is a compromise, there is no doubt about it, but it Iwould have benefits. Senator MCGEE. But you are going to get repercussions from the compromise so, therefore, you might just as well take the static and do it right the first time instead of having a little pain 20 steps along the way. Mr. WALRATH. That, Mr. Chairman, is why I said I would not oppose the principle of Senator Robertson's suggestions as to standardization of daylight saving. That would be an ideal to be achieved, coupled with S. 1033 or S. 1195, each accommodating that required daylight saving. That would be a step in the right direction provided it didn't raise so much controversy, that all of our efforts at constructive legislation got bogged down, as it has in the past and then we didn't get anything done. Senator MCGEE. You are addressing yourself as a realist to what might be done rather than what ought to be done? Mr. WALRATH. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. Senator MCGEE. I think on this particular question, we might be surprised at what could be done if we worked at it. We make so many assumptions about the bogeymen that lie in wait along that way-I am afraid the Congress does this all too often-that they fail to come up with the kinds of answers that the times have a right to expect of us by anticipating these various pitfalls. It is refreshing in a way, however, to find this Alphonse and Gaston act about who is going to administer this thing. Are there any alternatives to either your Commission or the Department of Commerce on the Federal horizon? Mr. WALRATH. We haven't come up with any. It seemed to us that the double argument, that is, that the interest of Commerce is much broader than just the surface transportation and weights and measures are so closely tied in not only actually, but in the legislative history with time. We have done some research on that and it goes way back to Thomas Jefferson's time and Benjamin Franklin's. Each related time to weights and measures. But, it seemed to us in that relationship to fall into a category of standardization that relates more to the Department of Commerce or to a division of the Office of the Secretary of Commerce. We thought of no other appropriate agency. We think that that argues strongly for the Secretary of Commerce in both his commercial context, his friendly relations with State government at various levels, plus the weights and measures argument. On the other hand, we are not asking you to take it away from us simply because it is troublesome, but it will be for anyone who handles it. We haven't thought of a third agency, I will have to admit frankly. Senator MCGEE. Well, we have many agencies that have to do with water resource and development and if we are not careful here, we will have the FAA administering some part of this and the ICC a part of it and the FCC a part of it that affects broadcasters and we will be back where we don't want to go. So what we are really talking about is a dangerous centralization of Federal authority which it seems to me has to come and we ought to learn from the experiences we have had in these others and I would hope it would come. Mr. WALRATH. None of us would advocate atomization of the power. Senator MCGEE. Do you anticipate enactment of either bill would bring about any major changes in the present time zone boundaries? Mr. PYNE. I don't think so. Mr. WALRATH. I don't believe so, Mr. Chairman. I think that generally there would be more conformity. I think that these zigzag lines would tend to straighten out somewhat. Senator MCGEE. Tend to straighten them out. You could do that by adhering to the suggestion also that you take the less populated areas for drawing of those lines? Mr. WALRATH. Yes. For example, even if you had the absolute power to do it, to draw a line right down the center of a city where on one side of the street you would have one time and the other, another time, that would be unrealistic. The administering agency would take into view those geographic considerations and I would think the passage of either bill would tend to straighten out some of those very unrealistic lines. Senator MCGEE. I would hope that our glorious part of the world, where we have high altitude and low multiudes, that you wouldn't be tempted to move the lines out there where you think it would be less disrupting because we have a paradise now and we would just as soon be left alone. Mr. WALRATH. We don't want to upset any paradises. Senator MCGEE. Those are all the questions, I think, that the committee would care to raise with you. We thank you very much for your cooperation in addressing yourself to these questions. Mr. WALRATH. Should you like a formal expression on Senator Robertson's bill, we would be glad to give it to you. Senator MCGEE. If you will submit that for the record, we are going to keep the record open for a week so that as you reflect on it, if there are other thoughts or another point of view that you believe would be beneficial to the committee, you can insert it in the record. Mr. WALRATH. And, if you find on reflection I have not fully answered Senator Bartlett's question, we would be glad to explore that further. Senator MCGEE. All right, if there are no other matters that you would care to introduce, the committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the committee was adjourned.) (The following material was submitted for the record :) Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES, DEAR CHAIRMAN MAGNUSON: It is our understanding that your committee has held a recent hearing on S. 1033 and S. 1195, bills which contemplate a more uniform system of timekeeping in the United States. The Association of Oil Pipe Lines has authorized me to advise that we support the efforts of the Committee for Time Uniformity to achieve a uniform system of time standards and measurement. We greatly appreciate your inter est in this subject, including not only your introduction of S. 1033 but also your prompt scheduling of the hearing to explore the problems of time uniformity. We support the enactment of S. 1033. It reflects the study and recommendations of the Interstate Commerce Commission and, if enacted, would enable the transportation industry, including the oil pipeline industry, to reduce greatly the existing confusion which prevails throughout the Nation. Sincerely, GORDON C. LOCKE, General Counsel. THE AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: We understand that the Senate Committee on Commerce will hold a public hearing April 29 on S. 1033 and S. 1195, bills which are designed to establish a uniform system of time in the United States. The board of directors of the American Waterways Operators, Inc., has authorized us to advise your committee of the support of our members throughout the United States of a uniform system of time standards and measurement. The present lack of uniformity creates confusion in many instances for our members in their work to provide transportation services in the movement of freight over the inland waterways. Confusion in communications also results. The confusion is not only aggravating but it is also a costly burden to the transportation industry of which the shallow-draft water carriers, as you know, is an integral part. Specifically, this organization desires to be recorded in the hearing as supporting enactment of S. 1033 which you have introduced and which reflects the reasoned recommendations of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The American Waterways Operators, Inc., is a nonprofit, educational, membership trade association representing the national interests of the shallow-draft water carriers of the United States as well as ship builders, ship repairers, and terminals serving the inland carriers. Our members' operations serve 33 States of the Union and, I am sure, their interest in time uniformity is evident. We shall appreciate your consideration of this association's support, on behalf of its membership, of the efforts to achieve uniformity in time standards for the United States. Sincerely yours, BRAXTON B. CARR, President. AMERICAN HOTEL & MOTEL ASSOCIATION, Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: The American Hotel & Motel Association is highly gratified over the fact that the Senate Commerce Committee is holding hearings this week on your bill (S. 1033), which would establish a uniform system of time standards and measurement for the United States and require the observance of such time standards for all purposes. We want to take this occasion to thank your personally for your sponsorship of this long-needed legislation, and it is our sincere hope that the committee will see fit to report this bill to the Senate for enactment. The utter confusion which now exists between the Federal and State systems in several States, with the additional aggravation created by local options in individual communities, should be ended at the earliest possible date. We of the hotel industry have felt the need of this legislation for many years, and we are confident that these hearings will confirm our belief that practically every segment of the business community desires an end of the increasing confusion caused by a lack of uniformity in time standards. We request that this letter be accepted as part of the record of your hearings to show the unqualified support of this association for the enactment of this legislation. Respectfully submitted. DREW MARTIN, Washington Representative. |