Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

and regulations. So construed it is not exclusive of State action on the same subject matter. Massachusetts State Grange v. Benton, 10 F. 2d 515 affirmed 272 U.S. 525. Apparently, under this view, a State may establish daylight saving time for all or certain parts of the State, for certain cities or areas of large population concentrations, for State offices and officials in performance of their duties and for other purposes.

The bill, which would be cited as “The Standard Time Act of 1963,” would repeal the present standard time law, which provides for five standard time zones, and establish a uniform system of time and fix the standard of time measurement for the United States including the States of Alaska and Hawaii, consisting of eight time zones. Penalties would be provided for violations of the ineasure.

Whether the bill should be enacted involves a question of policy concerning which the Department of Justice prefers to make no recommendation.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours,

NICHOLAS DEB. KATZENBACI,

Deputy Attorney General.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., August 13, 1963. Hon. OREN HARRIS. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : Your request for comment on H.R. 1702 and H.R. 6284, related bills to establish a uniform time system for the United States, and for other purposes, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon, expressing the views of the Department of Defense.

Except during the two World Wars, uniformity with respect to the observance of daylight saving time has not existed in the United States. Whether daylight saving time is used or not and the periods during which it is in effect are matters for local determination. It is in general not possible to tell with certainty what time is kept in a particular locality on a given date.

The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, supports the enactment of legislation to provide for a uniform system of time for the United States. No preference however, is expressed as to the many bills pending before the 88th Congress.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours,

C. R. KEAR, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Navy,

Deputy Chief

Chief (For the Secretary of the Navy).

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C., June 30, 1964.
Hon. OREN HARRIS,
Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 11407 and H.R. 11483, related bills to establish a uniform time system for the United States, and for other purposes, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense.

Except during the two World Wars, uniformity with respect to the observance of daylight saving time has not existed in the United States. Whether daylight time is used or not and the periods during which it is in effect are matters for local determination. It is in general not possible to tell with certainty what time is kept in a particular locality on a given date.

The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, supports the enactment of legislation to provide for a uniform system of time for the United States. However, the Department defers to the Department of Commerce as to its preference of the many bills pending before the 88th Congress.

This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours,

C. R. KEAR, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Navy,

Deputy Chief
(For the Secretary of the Navy).

OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,

Washington, D.C., June 25, 1963. Hon. OREN HARRIS, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representa

tives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in reply to your request for our comments on the bill (H.R. 4702) proposing to establish a uniform system of time standards for the United States. This bill provides for mandatory use of time standards throughout the country and prescribes regulatory powers for the Government and penalties for noncompliance.

We favor the general objectives of this bill to eliminate the confusion resulting from a lack of uniformity in the adoption of daylight saving time by various jurisdictions. The measure, however, though providing for a desirable uniformity in dates for the daylight changeovers for all those jurisdictions which will use daylight time, falls short of the goal of complete uniformity by failing to prescribe daylight time for all jurisdictions.

The establishment of an additional time zone for the New England States to be known as Atlantic time will require this Department to make substantial mail transportation schedule changes. It will also affect our ability to provide overnight service from the eastern zone to the Atlantic zone because of the 1-hour differential.

Section 8 of the bill, for instance, would authorize establishment of subzones within the standard zones transferring them eastward to the next adjacent standard time zone during the period from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. Though giving the effect of daylight time to the subzone, it continues the present undesirable situation of having daylight time in one part of a standard zone but not in another.

Though a mandatory and uniform daylight time for the country as a whole would best serve the interest of mail transportation the proposed legislation is at least a step in the right direction, and for that reason we favor its enactment. It will, we believe, in some measure benefit mail transportation by definitely fixing daylight time areas and standardizing the date periods.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that from the standpoint of the ad. ministration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the committee. Sincerely yours,

J. EDWARD Day, Postmaster General. Mr. Long. The Honorable Clarence D. Martin, Jr., the Under Secretary for Transportation, Department of Commerce, has submitted his Department's report in the form of a statement which is dated June 18, 1964. If there is no objection, that statement will appear at this point in the record.

(The statement mentioned follows:)

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE D. MARTIN, JR., UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to make this statement in connection with the interest of the Deparment of Commerce in these several bills which seek to improve our system of time zones in the United States and also deal with the confusion resulting from present daylight time practices.

Good time zone legislation is a matter of concern to the Department of Commerce. Confusing time practices are wasteful, expensive, and a burden on commerce.

Since 1918 we have limped along with unsatisfactory time legislation. Wholly apart from the problem of daylight saving time, the time zones prescribed pur. suant to the 1918 act are not universally observed except with respect to the few matters as to which they are compulsory. With the addition of daylight saving time to the problem, the confusion is compounded since some areas observe daylight saving time, others do not, and there is no unanimity as to the duration of the daylight saving period. The record is replete with striking stories of multiple time changes within a relatively short distance, a classic example being that of the seven changes over a 40-mile stretch of highway not far from the Nation's Capital.

Today's hearing involves 10 bills. H.R. 6284, H.R. 11206, H.R. 11310, and H.R. 11407 are all aimed specifically at the problem of daylight saving time. H.R. 11206 and H.R. 11310 are identical. Although there is a good deal of difference among these bills none of them goes beyond an attempt to solve this vexing part of the total time problem. While I recognize the importance of a solution to the daylight saving question, I am firmly of the opinion that it represents only one feature of the total time problem and it would be unwise to deal with it separately when we have an opportunity to deal with the total time problem. In fact, the Department of Commerce does not believe it is desirable to make day. light saving time automatically compulsory by statute. Large segments of our population have manifiested preferences for either daylight saving or for yearround standard time and we believe that it should be feasible for the wishes of both these groups to be substantially accommodated within a uniform system administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

H.R. 2335 and H.R. 2532 would prohibit the adoption of daylight saving time for any period or areas notwithstanding any amount of public or local support for its adoption. While they would have the merit of establishing uniform time standards, supported by modest enforcement provisions, they are inadequate in several other respects. They fail to meet the need of Alaska for additional zones; they would not authorize revision of existing zone boundaries, some of which have been severely criticized as unrealistic; and they do not provide for exceptions required for important scientific and technical needs of the Nation,

H.R. 3114 would establish 24 standard time zones each of which would be designated as a U.S. standard time zone with an appropriate number, counting west and east from Greenwich, England, where U.S. time zone 1 would be established. These zones would have geometrically precise boundaries at 15° intervals of longitude. The prescribed time would be maintained throughout the year and would govern the movement of carriers subject to U.S. regulation, Federal departments and agencies, and the time of performance of acts and accrual and termination of rights under Federal law. Other time standards could be established and used for any other purposes.

We envisage a number of difficulties if H.R. 3114 were to be enacted into law.

The rigid establishment of zonal boundaries with no flexibility would undoubtedly lead to a result that a number of cities and even buildings within cities would be cut in two by boundaries and would fall into different time zones. Moreover, the bill would share the weakness of the 1918 statute in failing to achieve time uniformity except with respect to certain extremely limited applications, such as movement of carriers, Federal business, and the like. It also poses serious difficulties for the Weather Bureau, a constituent unit of this Department. The Bureau is concerned that the provisions of H.R. 3114 might be interpreted in a way to hamper its meteorological operations and perhaps those of other scientific agencies. The Weather Bureau has estimated that the bill might cost it as much as $750,000 and require 50 positions annually by necessitating conversion and recording of time designations of meteorological observations of the United States prior to international exchange in order to comply with international agreements.

Because of these rather serious defects and deficiencies the Department of Commerce is unable to recommend enactment of H.R. 3114,

As for the three remaining bills, H.R. 4702 and H.R. 7891 are substantially the same as to content and effect. H.R. 4702 is a companion bill to S. 1033 and was introduced at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission. H.R. 11483 is identical with S. 1033 as reported by the Senate.

On April 29 and 30, 1963, the Senate Committee on Commerce held hearings on S. 1033 and two other bills. I was privileged to testify on that occasion. As a result, I believe, of a consensus developed at that time, the Senate committee reported a rather substantially revised version of S. 1033 which includes a number of suggestions originating in our own Department.

We consider H.R. 11843 to be generally an excellent piece of legislation and we endorse it in principle, subject to reservations as to certain provisions of section 7.

H.R. 11483 appears to be a sensible and reasonable compromise between the position of a strict statutory Federal time and the position of no compulsion whatever. Under the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, zone boundaries would be established which would correspond generally with boundaries presently in use. For the convenience of the public an additional time zone would be established on the eastern seaboard to be known as the Atlantic time zone and to the west three additional zones would be established to be known respectively as Yukon, Alaska-Hawaii, and Bering.

As to daylight saving time, the bill would authorize the Commission to determine the boundary of one advanced time or daylight saving subzone within each zone. Daylight saving time would begin on the last Sunday in April and would end on the last Sunday in October in all subzones so established. This period coincides with the great majority of daylight saving time programs now observed throughout the country. No point or area might be included in an advanced time subzone for which the standard time of the zone to the east to which the subzone is temporarily transferred would be more than 1 hour and 30 minutes ahead of local mean solar time. Local wishes would have to be taken into account on both the adoption of daylight saving time and its geographical extent.

The time established by the Commission pursuant to the bill would be the exclusive time for the transaction of all public business by agencies or departments of the United States, by common carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and for communication by wire or radio. It would also be the time for the performance of acts and the accrual or termination of rights under Federal law and regulations. Except in these respects it would not be compulsory. I note, however, a new feature, not found in present law or in other proposals, which I believe would develop a good deal of desirable leverage in the direction of uniformity; namely, the requirement that communication by wire or radio be expressed in terms of the prescribed standard time. The Commission is also authorized and directed to foster widespread and uniform adoption of the time standards provided in the bill by States and their subdivisions. In our judgment these provisions fall short of the rigid or excessive Federal compulsion which is felt by many to be objectionable.

Returning to the subject of daylight saving or advanced time, I should like to express our endorsement of the care and moderation with which that difficult subject is approached in H.R. 11483. The term "daylight saving time," itself a source of many confusions, would be eliminated. This would be accomplished by transferring the advanced time subzone during the applicable period from the end of April to the end of October to the zone immediately to its east and making the legal time of the subzone the standard time of the zone into which it is temporarily so transferred. Ample provision is made for hearings and investigations, for consultation with State Governors, and for petitions and hearings to which the Administrative Procedure Act would apply with respect to the establishment of zones and subzones.

However, the authority and discretion of the Commission to establish advanced time subzones would be limited in two important respects. First, only a single subzone could be established in each zone. This might have the effect of forcing the Commission to choose in some cases between unattractive alternatives, where it would be necessary either to exclude an area which desired advanced time, or to include an area which did not want it.

The second concerns the geographic limitation of advanced time subzones which results from the provision that areas may not be included if the mean solar time differential exceeds 1 hour and 30 minutes. We understand this to mean that, generally speaking, in most zones and areas the westernmost parts of the zones would be ineligible for advanced or daylight saying time no matter how great the local desire for it might be.

We believe that further consideration should be given to whether these restrictions upon the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish daylight saving time are necessary and in the public interest.

It is our belief that H.R. 11483 would have the effect of achieving a desirable degree of uniformity in our timekeeping practices—far more than we have at present. Subject to the reservations expressed in this statement we consider it to be a good bill and recommend its enactment.

Mr. Long. First, we have several bills which would make standard time mandatory all year round. In this category we have bills by Representative Gray of Illinois (H.R. 2335) and Representative Price of Illinois (H.R. 2532) as well as a bill introduced by Congressman Staggers, the chairman of this subcommittee (H.R. 3114).

Next, we have several bills which would make daylight saving time mandatory during certain calendar periods--H.R. 6284 by Representative Fulton of Tennessee and H.R. 11407 introduced by the chairman of our full committee, Representative Oren Harris of Arkansas.

A third category consists of bills which would fix specific dates on which daylight time would begin and end in those jurisdictions which observe daylight time. Here we have H.R. 11206° by Representative Fraser of Minnesota, H.R. 11310 by Representative Karth of Minnesota, and H.R. 11672 by Representative Corman of California.

Fourth, we have bills introduced by the chairman of our full committee, H.R. 4702 and H.R. 7891, introduced by Mr. Staggers. These bills incorporate the recommendations of the ICC on the subject of time uniformity and provide for mandatory observance of standard and daylight time zones for Federal, State, and local purposes.

Finally, we have H.R. 11483 which Congressman Staggers introduced in order to bring before the subcommittee a bill identical with a bill (S. 1033) reported in the other body by the Senate Commerce Committee. This bill is based on the ICC bill which I just mentioned but it would make time uniformity mandatory only for Federal activities and interstate transportation and communications.

This represents a short rundown of the bills on which we are holding hearings this morning, and without anything further we shall hear from our first witness this morning, who is Congressman Donald Fraser of the State of Minnesota.

Congressman Fraser, would you come forth and proceed in your own order please. We are of course happy to have you and happy to have your views on this matter.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. FRASER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. FRASER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

First, may I express my appreciation for the opportunity to testify and for the fact that the committee is holding hearings on this subject. It is one that plagued me for many years as a member our of State legislature and now appears to be an issue that plagues Congress, but it is one I think that does have to be resolved.

36-471-64--3

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »