In 1957, rockabilly artist Bob Ehret sang, “We’ve got to stop the clock, baby; to spend more time with you.” Decades later, that sentiment echoed through the halls of Congress, as senators from both parties gathered at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing to examine the implications of continuing or ending Daylight Saving Time (DST).
Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas and the committee’s chairman, explained that Daylight Saving Time was originally introduced with good intentions, primarily to cut energy consumption. However, he argued that over time, it has caused more problems than it solved, including a rise in traffic accidents during darker mornings, disruptions in workplace productivity, and resistance from farmers who depend 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.
He emphasized that the original idea behind DST was straightforward: more daylight in the evening would reduce the need for artificial lighting and heating. “The idea was simple. Fewer hours of darkness meant less electricity consumption for lighting and heating,” Cruz added.
But Cruz pointed out that the energy-saving benefits that may have made sense in the early 1900s are now negligible. As he put it, sunrise and sunset timings today have “de minimis” effects on the current economy, which is far less dependent on daylight than it once was.
During the hearing, Cruz was joined by Dr. Karin Johnson, a neurology expert from Massachusetts. Both highlighted the health consequences of resetting clocks twice a year. Cruz particularly noted the dangers of the spring time change when people lose an hour of sleep. Johnson further elaborated on how these abrupt shifts can negatively impact people’s circadian rhythms, vascular health, and sleep quality.
The panel also heard from an official representing the National Golf Course Owners Association. This testimony highlighted the economic boost provided by later daylight hours, which allow for extended evening recreation such as golf and other tourist-friendly activities. Lawmakers sympathetic to business interests saw these benefits as compelling arguments in favor of maintaining DST.
On the Democratic side, Senator Lisa Blunt-Rochester of Delaware voiced her support for ending the twice-yearly clock changes. She emphasized the need for a “permanent time for our country” and referred to a bill once introduced by Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, that proposed eliminating DST. That bill, however, eventually stalled in the House of Representatives.
“This body [then] took a harder look at how time changes work state-by-state,” Blunt-Rochester said. She acknowledged the challenges of creating a uniform time policy that works for every region. “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.”
Experts and lawmakers at the hearing acknowledged that southern states like Florida and Texas would likely feel the drawbacks of a permanent DST more than others. These states already experience significant heat and sun exposure, and extending evening daylight could increase health risks and disrupt established routines.
Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, discussed his past efforts to modify DST. He shared how he helped extend the daylight period to better accommodate events like Halloween, ensuring children could go trick-or-treating during twilight hours rather than in full darkness. Markey even joked about his long-standing involvement with DST reform. “The Sun King” is the nickname he’s earned for his efforts, he said with a smile.
Senator Blunt-Rochester echoed Markey’s concerns about the harmful consequences of frequent time changes. “We need to stop the clock,” she said. “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.”
Scott Yates, founder of the Lock the Clock movement, also testified. He delved into the history of DST and discussed how it was briefly made permanent during the 1970s energy crisis under President Richard Nixon’s administration. Yates recalled how unpopular the change became, particularly because it robbed people of an hour of sleep just as the school year resumed after winter break.
“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 explained. He noted that the decision to reverse permanent DST came just months before Nixon’s resignation.
Yates added a historical footnote, reminding the committee that the infamous Watergate break-in by the Nixon administration’s so-called “Plumbers” team occurred during nighttime hours. Cruz responded to this anecdote with a quip of his own: “So maybe — if we had more daylight, the Watergate break-in doesn’t happen.”
With input ranging from public health to tourism revenue, and from historical experiments to bipartisan support, the hearing revealed a deepening consensus in Congress: the time may be right to reconsider how the nation keeps time.