at the summer solstice in June in the Northern Hemisphere and in December in the Southern Hemisphere, the period of daylight at 25° is 1 hour and 36 minutes longer than at the Equator; at 40°, 2 hours and 54 minutes longer; at 50°, 4 hours and 16 minutes longer; at 60°, 6 hours and 46 minutes longer; etc., until above the Arctic Circle (66:30 north latitude) and below the Antarctic Circle (66:30 south latitude) daylight extends for 12 hours longer than at the Equator, or all 24 hours.

To state this phenomenon in another way: At the equinoxes, all of the points on any given meridian, the 75th, for example, have sunrise at about the same time. So, on the equator in Columbia, South America, at 25° near the Bahamas, at 40° in the Philadelphia area, at 50° near Chibougamau, Quebec, and at 60° near the east shore of Hudson Bay, the sun rises on March 20 and September 22 at about the same time. At the summer solstice, however, when it is sunrise at the place in Colombia, South America, where the 75th meridian crosses the equator, sunrise on the 25th parallel occurs at 87° longitude in the Gulf of Mexico about 350 miles south of Pensacola; on the 40th parallel at 96:45° near Beatrice, Nebr.; on the 50th parallel at 107° just southwest of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; and on the 60th parallel at 125:45° near the southeast corner of Yukon Territory.

For

It is this substantial slant of the sun's rays during the summer months that actually led to the adoption of daylight saving time. The original theory was that in the northern latitudes, characterized by short days in winter and correspondingly long days in summer, an effort should be made to utilize to the best advantage the long periods of sunlight available in the summer months. Accordingly, in the summer months the time standard was advanced 1 hour. such a scheme to succeed, the standard of time, when advanced by an hour, must still bear a reasonable relation to local sun time, and afford adequate daylight for the performance of the usual morning activities. This is not possible in the lower latitudes, where there is not enough difference between the long and short days to result in any substantial benefits. Clearly at or near the equator, where the periods of daylight and darkness are nearly equal the year round, daylight saving time would be pointless.

At 10° latitude, the earliest sunrise in summer is only 23 minutes before 6 a.m. At 20° it is 40 minutes before; at 30°, an hour and 2 minutes before; at 40°, an hour and a half; at 50°, 2 hours and 10 minutes; and at 60°, 3 hours and 25 minutes before 6 a.m. These figures are for the longest days. The average for the usual daylight saving time period of 182 days would be a little more than half the figures shown, and for the higher latitudes sunrise in October would occur after 6 a.m. For example, at latitude 40° the time of sunrise on April 26, 1964, the day many U.S. citizens turned their clocks ahead, was 6:07 a.m. daylight-saving time. This time of sunset ranged up to 5:30 a.m. In the middle of June, and back to 7:20 a.m. on October 24, the last day of daylight saving time. Measured by standard time, sunrise on this parallel ranged from 53 minutes before 6 in April to 90 minutes before 6 in June, and back again to 20 minutes after 6 in October. The average was about 52 minutes before 6 for the entire period.

CONCLUSION

"No wonder the time situation is such a mess," says the reckless cynic, "It is incredible that the world is still using an outmoded system of time, concocted by a bunch of old fogies back in the 1880's." But despite its continual battering, the hourly zone time system is still adhered to throughout most of the world, at least basically. Actually the world time situation is not as bad as one might think, and whatever confusion exists is caused, not by the system itself, but by the failure to adhere to it. This is not to say that there is no room for improvement.

One of the important causes of difficulty is the observance of standards not on 1 of the 24 regular hourly bases, but in between them. Eighteen such irregular standards are in use. While most of them are on the half hour, several are based on odd minutes faster or slower than a regular standard. As a result there are a total of 42 different standards of time known to be in use at present. Many of the countries using the odd standards, however, are small or are islands. Nevertheless, the reduction of the number of these odd times, or their elimination, would surely simplify the time situation.

There is little doubt that the greatest contribution to existing confusion is made by the instability and lack of coordination of much of the time system of the

United States and Canada, due to the mistaken notion that time observance is and should be a matter of only local concern and to the lack of restraint on the part of local officials in the exercise of the power accorded them by default of Federal and State Governments.

In contrast, most of western Europe and a large part of western Africa now observe a single standard of time the year round. This area extends north and south from Sweden to Italy and from Algeria to Angola, embracing about 30 different countries with a total population of over 375 million. In Europe the area extends from Spain to Yugoslavia, a total of over 30 degrees of longitude, equal to a time belt of more than 2 hours. Three other countries, Norway, Poland, and Albania, with a total population of 35 million, also observe this western European time in the winter but shift forward an hour under daylight saving time in the summer. This is more than offset by the fact that the 65 million people in the British Islands and Portugal, who are in the zero zone, also shift forward to Greenwich daylight saving time, the equivalent of western European time. It is remarkable that the French and Germans and even the English and the Irish are able to agree on a common standard of time, a goal which appears unattainable by such good Washington, D.C. neighbors as Alexandria and Richmond, Va., who observe different periods of daylight saving.

In addition to the United States, Canada, and the British Islands, there are only a few countries that observe daylight saving time. The periods differ between the different countries; but are effective nationwide.

One of the principal causes of controversy in time matters is the failure of the participants to give sympathetic consideration to the other side. A New Englander, for example, raised on daylight saving time, cannot fathom the objections of his western or southern friends. The city dweller, who enjoys the benefits from the annual shift in time, sees no logic in the stubborn opposition of farmers. The rural dweller has nothing but contempt for the yearly practice of city folks believed to bring inconvenience and misery to everyone by their yearly clock "hocus-pocus."

An examination of the time zones of the world engenders a sincere respect for the system and the ingenuity of those who some 85 years ago, succeeded in laying the foundation for the present time zones. Despite scientific advances in many fields, no better system has been found or suggested. Greater adherence to the underlying plan should be rewarding. It is destructive to permit two standards to be in effect in any one place at any one time, dependent on such vague demarcations as Federal versus State, interstate versus intrastate, or State versus city. A reasonable relation to sun time is essential. A convenient distribution of available sunshine between morning and afternoon hours for the various communities concerned can only be achieved by cooperation in considering the relevant facts pertaining to the entire zone, and beyond that to the entire country.

No satisfactory time system can ever evolve from a multitude of independent and conflicting actions of many separate communities in widely varying circumstances, each bent on determining the time it wants without regard for the interests of the area as a whole. On the other hand, in the absence of adequate time laws, cooperation between communities, and areas, and States, and regions, is the only way to a better and more stable time system for the United States. Mr. REDDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing further. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Moss, do you have any questions?

Mr. Moss. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions.

Mr. Redding, I understand your association has as its minimal request establishing three new time zones and uniform dates for changes, is that correct?

Mr. REDDING. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Do you feel that that goes far enough in achieving time uniformity?

Mr. REDDING. It does not solve the problem completely, Mr. Moss, but we feel that as a practical matter, it is the most that the Congress can expect to do at this time on this problem. We have envisaged that there was a dichotomy here of a Federal role and a State role. I have already summarized the efforts that we are undertaking at State level.

As time has gone on in the last 2 to 3 years, and in consulting with Federal, State, and local officials, it became clear to us, increasingly so, that the Congress should not endeavor to say to any State or local jurisdiction whether or not to observe daylight time. This is a decision to be reached at State and local levels.

While the bills we have before us this morning, which we support, do not assure 100 percent time uniformity, sir, in our judgment, it resolves the first and foremost problem of time confusion, mainly, the switchover dates on daylight time. We are hopeful that our continued efforts at State level will result in having those States which now observe daylight time on a local option basis-will, by their own actions, bring about the daylight saving time on a statewide basis.

Mr. Moss. Do you think we should pass a bill that continues to respect local option on the matter of daylight time, local option at a level of government below that of the State?

Mr. REDDING. To answer your question, I feel again that were you to write a bill along the lines you describe, you would probably find considerable opposition stemming from State and local governmental levels, contending that it is their decision as to whether they observe daylight time or not. We have worked with officials of State and local governments in this matter. They are identified in Mr. Ramspeck's

statement.

Mr. Moss. Well, I can see that some advantage is achieved through a uniformity of dates. But for the average individual traveling across this Nation, I cannot feel that we have done very much to assist him. I have in mind the many times that I have driven across the United States and one town is on daylight and the other town is on standard, and you find some places where you do not know what time it is. You honestly do not know what time it is.

Mr. REDDING. Very true, sir. In fact, you could envisage the plight of the traveler passing from Iowa into Nebraska. He passes through Council Bluffs, which is on daylight time. Then he crosses the Missouri River and goes through Omaha, which is on standard time. Thus, he drives through two 5 p.m. rush hours. The consternation he suffers is beyond belief.

Mr. Moss. I have driven in that area. If we are going to do anything, it seems to me that at the very least, we should insist that the States assume the responsibility for standardization of the time within their own boundaries. I do not think we should permit any subdivision less than the State to retain local option.

Mr. REDDING. Yes, sir. I am impressed by your comment, and would simply add what I have already said, that in our cooperation with State officials, we have found them very much interested in doing the type of thing you suggest. This began with the efforts in California, you will recall, to shift from the last Sunday of September to the last Sunday of October. It has been followed in various States by the Governor's proclamation or by State legislative action.

Only a few months ago, in the State of Pennsylvania, where all official business was transacted on eastern standard time, there were nonetheless 600 communities that observed daylight time. Through our efforts and the cooperation of other interests, we succeeded in persuading the State legislature to enact a bill, later signed by the Governor, which provided for statewide daylight-saving time between the

last Sundays of April and October. I would feel that once we pass the type of legislation which is before you, the various States would rather quickly and voluntarily do the type of thing you feel important.

Now, as to the local subdivisions, this, of course, involves all types of pressures at the State level and in the State legislatures. Yet, I would be confident that even they would be amenable to State legislation, as was indicated in Pennsylvania.

Mr. Moss. Of course, I recall the battle in California in 1949 for the enactment of daylight-saving time. I was a member of the State legislature at the time. I think the overwhelming majority of both houses, the membership of both houses in the State legislature, felt that it was a far, far more appropriate area for Federal legislation than for State legislation. We desired uniformity, but we had not the power to achieve it.

I think here the Congress should give very, very careful consideration to the need for uniformity and not merely create uniformity of confusion. Because all we do, in the legislation being supported here, is to start it and end it at the same time. But the confusion across this Nation continues, and there is no power given here to remove it. I think as a minimum, we ought actually to achieve uniformity in this Nation on time.

Mr. REDDING. May I say that 43 organizations that have been a part of this combined effort would applaud that solution if it could be brought about. You realize, of course, that the greatest uniformity we could hope for would occur if we had a nationwide pattern of time observance, no question about it. But as a practical matter

Mr. Moss. It seems to me we have nationwide standard time. Along about April, we suddenly go into a pattern of chaos on time. Now, we achieved the uniform standard time because of Federal legislation, and I think we need the same solution if we are ever to have uniformity of time during the period of the year when most people do most of their driving.

Mr. REDDING. Thank you for your interest, Mr. Moss. I hope this committee will enact favorable legislation of some sort, certainly. Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Kornegay, do you have any questions?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the witness, but would simply like to make a statement.

Mr. FRIEDEL. First, I would like to make the statement that that 14page report will not be included in the record at this time. It will be referred to our staff members to look over, and then it may be included in the record later.

Mr. REDDING. Very good; thank you, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I have no questions of the witness, but I would like to state that I really have no preference as to whether we operate on fast time or slow time, as they say down home. But I do think it is highly desirable that we operate on the same time.

That is all.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Van Deerlin.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In California, we refer to standard time as God's time, not fast time or slow time.

Does the committee on time uniformity regard this legislation as a foot in the door? What is the long-range goal of the committee? Mr. REDDING. First, the committee is but a temporary body, an ad hoc organization which was created in 1962, when transportation forces came to the Transportation Association of America, with which I am affiliated, and asked that we try to help out generally on solving the problems of time confusion. We created this ad hoc organization to which we refer. It now embraces well over 40 national organizations, as well as over 20 levels of governmental agencies. We did not envisage that we were going to exist perpetually. We have not yet decided how long our operation will continue. Our surveys showed so much confusion in the observance of daylight saving time that, at the very least, it would be a significant improvement to achieve a uniformity in switchover dates on daylight time wherever it prevailed. This was the first and foremost view that was expressed by all cooperating industry interests. Much improvement has occurred since 1962. Second, we ascertained that the Interstate Commerce Commission was charged with responsibility, back in World War I days, for time reguation, so to speak. The agency was unhappy with this, and for 30 consecutive years, in annual reports to Congress, asked that Congress take an interest in this problem. Consequently, the Committee for Time Uniformity decided that it should support the ICC request that Congress take an interest in this matter. We feel we have now succeeded in this objective.

We felt that to achieve any solution, total or partial, there must be public understanding of not only the problems of time confusion but of all the interests that felt something should be done about it. Therefore, we brought this to the attention of the public.

In summary, our long-range objectives have been, first, the enactment of Federal legislation along the lines we now propose; and second, action in individual States now observing daylight time whereby those observing it on a local option basis would correct it to a statewide basis.

Beyond that, we have no specific objectives.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. In calling this the only practical solution, you mean it is the only politically possible solution you can think of at this time?

Mr. REDDING. Indeed so. We were concerned, Mr. Van Deerlin, about the problems of endeavoring to seek Federal solution of this whole problem, as to who would observe daylight time, and facing possible opposition from various State and local interests. From the very outset, therefore, we endeavored to minimize and avoid that problem. I have already stated to the subcommittee that to date, and in view of the pattern that we have set, it has not been voiced. Countless editorials across the land have urged Congress to act.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Yes, but if you are after time uniformity, as Mr. Moss has pointed out, there will be plenty for the committee still to do if this legislation is passed, will there not?

Mr. REDDING. I would say that if this legislation is passed, you are updating the basic law on this subject by providing for the standard time zones in conformity with present practices. Present practices do not conform to the way the law now reads.