In 1957, rockabilly singer Bob Ehret repeated, “We’ve got to stop the clock, baby; to spend more time with you” – and in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle strongly considered the benefits of doing so, in a way.
Chairman Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Daylight Saving was grounded in good-faith efforts to reduce energy consumption, but that instead it has led to increased auto accidents in the dark, workplace issues, and objections from the agriculture sector that relies on early-morning sunlight.
“We find ourselves adjusting our clocks… springing forward and falling back in the fall. For many Americans, this biannual ritual is a minor inconvenience… 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,” Cruz said.
“The idea was simple. Fewer hours of darkness meant less electricity consumption for lighting and heating.”
However, unlike the early 1900s, when the U.S. economy was heavily reliant on energy consumption tied to daylight hours, today’s effects from sunrise and sunset timings are “de minimis,” he said.
Cruz, along with Massachusetts neurology physician Dr. Karin Johnson, spoke about the health concerns associated with changing the time twice a year and with the permanence of Daylight Saving Time, versus Standard Time.
“Research has shown that the abrupt shift in time, especially the spring transition when we lose an hour of sleep,” Cruz said, as Johnson spoke about the effects on people’s circadian rhythm, vascular system and sleep deprivation.
The panel also hosted an official from the National Golf Course Owners Association, as he and other lawmakers spoke of the increased revenue from evening tee times and other tourist activities only possible during daylight hours.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Lisa Blunt-Rochester of Delaware agreed that it was time to consider a “permanent time for our country.”
She noted a bill from then-Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., to abolish DST stalled in the House.
“This body [then] took a harder look at how time changes work state-by-state,” she said.
“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.”
‘I CAN’T SLEEP BECAUSE OF RACING THOUGHTS AT NIGHT — HOW CAN I STOP THEM?’: ASK A DOCTOR
Witnesses to the hearing noted that it is indeed southern states like Florida and Texas where the negative effects of a permanent Daylight Saving Time would be most felt.
Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., spoke about his work shifting Daylight Saving Time twice to help assuage some of the issues that were brought up each time, including better guaranteeing trick-or-treating happens at worst at dusk.
Markey quipped that his decades-long work on this issue earned him the nickname “the Sun King.”
“We need to stop the clock,” Blunt-Rochester said. “We know that changing the clock disrupts sleep, which can lead to negative health outcomes. Several studies have noted issues with mood disturbances increase hospital admissions, and even heart attacks and strokes.”
Lock The Clock movement founder Scott Yates testified about the flawed history of DST, noting a time during the 1970s energy crisis that the Nixon administration briefly made DST permanent.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Nixon signed the law in December 1973 while embroiled in Watergate – but it took effect the first week the following year – Jan. 6, 1974.
“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,” Yates said, noting that months later, Nixon resigned.
The burglary by the “Plumbers” at the Watergate Hotel also notably occurred during nighttime hours.
“So maybe – if we had more daylight, the Watergate break-in doesn’t happen,” Cruz quipped in response.
“And history would be different.”
