applicable to H.R. 11483, since many of the provisions in that bill parallel and are identical to those contained in H.R. 4702.

Indeed, it appears that the principal difference between the two bills are that H.R. 11483 would promote, but not require, observance by State and local governments of time standards prescribed by the administering agency. In our opinion, this difference has merit and certainly would not cause us to criticize H.R. 11483, or to oppose enactment of this bill in lieu of H.R. 4702.

On the other hand, we believe that the remaining measures under consideration at these hearings fail in various respects adequately to meet the need for additional time legislation.

H.R. 6284 and H.R. 11407 would require nationwide observance of daylight-saving time, for 15 weeks and 5 months, respectively; and H.R. 11206 would simply provide that when a State or local government employs daylight saving time, such advance standard of time shall remain in effect during a prescribed 6-month period. H.R. 11206 and H.R. 11407, however, contain no enforcement or penalty provisions, and those contained in H.R. 6284 relate solely to the proposed 15-week daylight-saving period. In addition, these bills would provide no criteria or administrative standards for use in the determination of such zone boundaries.

H.R. 2335 would require nationwide observance of standard time throughout the year by Federal, State, and local governments and by "any place of business or commercial enterprise." H.R. 3114 has a similar purpose but its application would be limited to the Federal Government and to common carriers engaged "in commerce subject to regulations" by the Federal Government.

H.R. 3114 contains no penalty or enforcement provisions and the sole sanction contemplated in H.R. 2335 is a fine of "not more than $100," a remedy which in many instances would be inappropriate or ineffective. Neither bill would provide guidelines to assist in the determination of zone boundaries.

In summary, and considering the many frustrations we have encountered over the years in administering the present Standard Time Act, we believe that the early attainment of a stable, orderly, and uniform system of time standards will best be achieved by enactment of the more comprehensive legislation represented by H.R. 4702 or alternately by H.R. 11483.

However, in view of the fact that surface transportation is only one of the many interests directly affected in any determination of matters relating to the observance of time standards we urge that careful consideration be given to the question of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission is the most appropriate agency to administer the provisions of any future law relating to standard time.

That concludes my formal statement. I want to comment with real approval on some of the testimony that has been given before this committee. I read the transcript and thought all the statement were good, I was particularly impressed by the statement of Mr. Ramspeck, the Chairman of the Time Uniformity Committee.

I think there is a little difference between H.R. 11483 and our bill on the time at which the new changes would become effective. We made it 1 year. The other bill makes it 2 years, and we are certainly not going to quibble about that because maybe it would take a little

longer time. As has been pointed out, perhaps any action that we took might be taken to court and it might not be fully disposed of within the 1 year that we specify.

I will be glad to try to answer any questions.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Goff, we certainly appreciate your coming and giving us the benefit of your views and I want to commend you for a very comprehensive statement that has gone into all facets of this proposal and I think it is very enlightening.

I was wondering about this last statement, that—

We urge that careful consideration be given to the question of whether the Interstate Commerce Commission is the most appropriate agency to administer the provisions of any future law relating to standard time.

I don't know of any other alternative. Do you have any to suggest? Mr. GOFF. Well, it has been a real trial to us.

Mr. STAGGERS. I understand.

Mr. GOFF. Particularly with the present status of the statute. You will understand that our jurisdiction extends only to those surface carriers that operate in interstate commerce. Time involves a lot more than just these common carriers.

Mr. STAGGERS. Oh, surely.

Mr. GOFF. Because, as was pointed out, and I thought very forcibly by Mr. Ramspeck, a clock affects everyone of us, every citizen. Everybody lives by the clock. I don't want to take your time, but you know we order everything by the clock. Out in my country we have lots of Indians, the Nez Perce, where I live. I remember one time there was an old Indian watching some fellows digging a ditch and they kept looking at their watches and the old Indian looked at them and said, "White man funny. Have to lookum watch to tell when he is hungry." But it does affect all of us.

Mr. STAGGERS. Oh, surely.

Mr. GOFF. We have a limited jurisdiction, No. 1. The next thing is that if there is a promotional feature in the effort to get States and communities to conform, we are really not a promotional agency. We do have contact with our carriers. If it means contacting the various Governors, if it means going out and making speeches and something like that, we really are not that kind of agency, and that is the only reason that we mention this.

I do say that if you will enact comprehensive legislation our Commission of course would be willing to serve should you designate us as the agency, and we do think that it would be infinitely easier to handle than in the present state of the statute.

Mr. STAGGERS. I just brought it up to get your views and I appreciate what you said because that would be the determination, I guess, of the committee as it goes into it further, but I would think that the surface transporation affects, as you say, all people.

Of course, our airlines, for example, come under a different agency, but I don't believe that we would have any trouble in coordinating. It does bring up a problem. Your one statement that "We believe that the early attainment of a stable, orderly, and uniform system of time standards will be best achieved by enactment" of this bill so that people will understand it. I think that is one of the things we are trying to get at, uniform, orderly time standards.

Mr. GoFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to express on behalf of the Commission our appreciation for your mentioning this objective, because, as I say, we have been at it for more than 30 years trying to get something done. If you could just get through a workable bill I can't tell you how much our Commission would appreciate it.

Mr. STAGGERS. Thank you very kindly. Mr. Van Deerlin.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. I guess anyone who has ever been hung up in a railroad station can understand the inconvenience factor that you mention. You also emphasized safety. Do you have any instances where there have been accidents possibly caused or narrowly missed by confusion over time standards?

Mr. GoFF. I will have to answer that by saying, as was my first reaction, that I actually don't know of any instances on the safety part of it. There is the possibility. I don't believe I had anything in my statement referring to safety.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Yes, you did. It is page 5. You say:

**this situation is not only paradoxical, but, in our opinion, it is also potentially dangerous.

Mr. GOFF. Oh, well, potentially dangerous. I would think perhaps in the airlines there might be something more than with the rails.

Even on the train schedules if a train crew should get mixed up and be off an hour, you can see that, since trains and airlines are run by very much by the clock-I think I am right in the statement-it is potentially dangerous, although I am unable, as I say, to give an exact example. Yes, I think that is true.

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Glenn.

Mr. GLENN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STAGGERS. Mr. Curtin.

Mr. CURTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Goff, I regret I didn't hear all of your statement because I was inadvertently detained for a time in my office, but from what I did hear, do I understand that the bill that you favor is H.R. 4702?

Mr. GOFF. Yes, or any comprehensive bill like H.R. 11483 introduced by Mr. Staggers or the one that was reported out by the Senate committee. Oh, there are some minor differences in the bills. But in the main the only real difference is that, first, they provide that the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be the agency to administer and second, that the Federal time set shall not be absolutely mandatory on States and communities. Those are the principal differences between the bills.

I think there is a slight difference also in the time that we may go from the mean solar time, but that is of little consequence. The Commission actually favors the bill that it presented for introduction, but we are not going to quibble on the adequacy of the three bills.

Mr. CURTIN. I see H.R. 4702 has a provision in it where there is considerable changing of the time zones throughout the world. Could that be done by legislation in this country alone, or wouldn't that require the cooperation of other countries?"

Mr. GOFF. Oh, yes, of course. We can only affect the time zone for the United States and in those areas outside the contiguous States like Alaska and Hawaii.

Mr. CURTIN. Do you agree that H.R. 4702 would require the cooperation of the other nations, particularly in view of sections 8 and

9?

Mr. GOFF. You say sections 8 and 9?

Mr. CURTIN. Sections 8 and 9. I might also add any other section of the bill which provides for new time zones, like a new time zone in Alaska, one new one in the Atlantic, and also in Hawaii.

Mr. GoFF. No, I think anything in here is based on section 4, which merely says:

The general zone system of standard time, under which the local standard time is determined in relation to the mean astronomical time of the 1 of the 24-hour meridians occurring every 15th degree of longitude west or east from Greenwich, England, is hereby recognized and adopted so far as applicable to the territory of the United States.

We simply recognize Greenwich time as a guide. as I see it, to say anything about time any place else. nize this in U.S. territory.

We don't try, We just recog

Mr. CURTIN. But the bill does provide for some new time zones, does it not?

Mr. GOFF. Oh, yes.

Mr. CURTIN. It proposes some changes in the time zones.

Mr. GOFF. Oh, yes, but that only applies to the U.S. territory. Mr. CURTIN. Wouldn't that require other countries of the world to approve, since apparently there is a standard relationship on time zones affecting all of the countries who recognize Greenwich time?

Mr. GOFF. According to their time it would vary, that is, Greenwich time would vary from our time, it is true, but still, like some nations have the metric measurement and we have the other, I don't think it would cause any real difference because they would realize that our local time in the United States was tagged to the Greenwich meridians. I don't think it would cause any real trouble.

Mr. CURTIN. I am not thinking so much in terms of trouble, but do you think any additional, or changes, in time zones in the U.S. would have to approve before such change became effective?

Mr. GoFF. No, not at all. If you go on board a ship or on a plane outside the United States they always refer to Greenwich time. I don't think it would cause any difficulty at all.

Mr. CURTIN. How about international air carriers who would be flying through the time zones?

Mr. GOFF. I don't think it would cause any real trouble because I think their clocks usually say Greenwich time so much and local time. in such a position.

Mr. CURTIN. But such changing of zones, or adding to the zones, in addition to being applicable to the international airlines, would also be applicable to the shipping lines, would it not?

Mr. GoFF. Yes, but they would expect to observe it here. I don't think it would cause any trouble.

Mr. CURTIN. That is all, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STAGGERS. Thank you very kindly. I would like to bring up one other thing. I have here a possible compromise draft that I believe was prepared by the uniform time committee which might substitute for both of these bills or all of these bills and I would like to have your comment on that, yours or Mr. Wallace's if you would, to see how it differs from other bills.

I have been intrigued by reading it. It seems to me almost similar. Are there any pertinent changes in this draft?

Mr. GOFF. The draft that I have here, Mr. Staggers?

Mr. STAGGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOFF. That was just handed to me only within the hour. I have looked over it very hastily. I do have some comments that I could make about it. I made some pencil notations. I think that it is an attempt to work out a comprehensive bill. I want to commend the author, but I do think it presents some drafting difficulties.

The way I read it, its effect would be to fix a rigid time standard for all Government agencies despite what the States might do. If that is true, the way it seems to read to me, you can see that all the Government agencies would have to be on standard time. Suppose the State made a change. The way it is now the Federal agencies conform as a matter of convenience, and I am a little afraid that as it is draftedI don't think it was intentionally done that way-that the draft bill might even create more confusion.

I think we will have to look pretty carefully to that provision, and next, there are no penalties whatever provided here.

In all the bills; that is, the major bills that I have referred to, the three, there is a provision for not only a criminal but a civil penalty and for means to enforce it, but this bill doesn't contain anything but the right to seek an injunction.

Mr. STAGERS. Thank you very much for your comments. It was handed to me, and I wanted one comment on the zones. They are set by international law close to the longitude lines, isn't that right, 75th and 105th and so forth? They deviate some in order to accommodate certain provisions of the area, I understand. They are not just a straight line.

Mr. GOFF. That is right. Of course Greenwich meridians are fixed to determine solar time.

Mr. STAGGERS. That is right.

Mr. GOFF. What has been done is that in order to accomodate various areas, and to avoid making a sharp change right in the midstreet of a city, the Commission in fixing the zones has tended to put them in more sparsely settled areas, so there is a little deviation in the standard time, but I think that is a reasonable and a necessary thing because otherwise, as I say, you are liable to cut right through a populous city.

You have to accommodate business there and it would be most inconvenient of there was a sharp change in a situation like that.

Mr. STAGGERS. This bill would give you the provisions to do that where there are special occasions and special situations that need it. Mr. GOFF. That is right.

Mr. STAGGERS. That is all I want to know. Any other questions? If not, we certainly want to thank you very kindly Mr. Goff because I think your testimony has been helpful and we certainly will be calling on you and your organization from time to time as this thing goes along and we proceed as we hope to.

Mr. GOFF. Mr. Chairman, our staff will be happy to cooperate with yours. They stand ready to assist you, any of the Commission, and I personally. I am so interested in this and so anxious to get some order, I am glad you mentioned that part in my last paragraph.