Senate holds hearing on daylight saving time — will the US ‘lock the clocks?'
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on Thursday — titled 'If I Could Turn Back Time: Should We Lock The Clock?' — to 'examine the various issues around whether the country should continue 'springing forward' and 'falling back' each year with time.'
'Congress has the authority to end this outdated and harmful practice. This hearing is an excellent opportunity to examine a thoughtful and rational approach to how we manage time. Whether we lock the clock on standard time year-round or daylight saving time, let's put our health, the economy, and well-being first and embrace a sensible approach to time management,' committee chairman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said in his opening remarks.
Daylight saving time 2025: These states are trying to 'lock the clocks'
Witnesses who appeared during the hearing included representatives from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, the National Golf Course Owners Association, and the Lock the Clock Movement — all of which have previously expressed interest in the changing of the clocks.
You can watch the majority of Thursday's hearing in the video player at the top of this story.
Companion bills to make daylight saving time permanent have been introduced in Congress, including one bill referred to Cruz's committee, while another bill would give states the power to observe daylight saving year-round — more on that in a moment.
The U.S.'s back-and-forth relationship with daylight saving time has been ongoing for over a century. It started as a wartime measure in 1918, only to be rolled back after a year. It returned in 1942 during World War II but was vastly more chaotic than it is today. Seasonal clock changes were enacted in 1966, but seven years later, the U.S. again observed year-round daylight saving time due to a national energy crisis.
What would change if daylight saving time became permanent?
Americans broadly supported the practice at first, until dark winter mornings prompted safety concerns, especially among parents. The nation returned to twice-a-year clock changes in 1974 and has largely stayed on the same schedule.
Over the last several years, there have been efforts to put the U.S. back on permanent daylight saving time, a move with which many health experts disagree. They instead recommend permanent standard time, which would provide us more sunlight in the mornings — a factor that can positively impact our sleep and circadian rhythm, which have further been connected to other health outcomes.
States that have proposed or enacted legislation targeting the changing of the clocks have generally split between locking them on permanent standard time or daylight saving time.
Only two states observe year-round standard time, an option afforded them by Congress' 1966 Uniform Time Act. States cannot opt for permanent daylight saving time. In most cases, the states standing on that side of the clock have introduced or passed measures calling on Congress to enact permanent daylight saving time or outlining conditions in which the state would observe daylight saving time permanently (typically based on actions by Congress or neighboring states).
A House bill to give states the power to observe daylight saving time all year has been introduced and referred to committee.
What if we didn't 'spring forward' when daylight saving time begins?
Multiple other states, however, have seen legislation introduced during their current legislative session to put the state on permanent standard time or exempt it from daylight saving time. None have passed as of early April.
Any current widespread action regarding daylight saving time would depend on Congress taking action. President Donald Trump previously expressed support for ending daylight saving time but signaled in March that he would not push for it, calling it 'a 50/50 issue.'
'It's a 50/50 issue, and if something is a 50/50 issue, it's hard to get excited about it,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'It's something I can do, but a lot of people like it one way. A lot of people like it the other way. It's very even. And usually, I find when that's the case, what else do we have to do?'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
UCSF doctor reinstated at FDA less than 2 weeks after resigning amid MAGA backlash
A divisive UCSF oncologist has reportedly been reinstated at the FDA less than two weeks after he resigned amid criticism from President Donald Trump's allies. Multiple media outlets on Saturday cited Health and Human Services Department officials confirming the reinstatement of Dr. Vinay Prasad, which was first reported by Endpoints News, a biotech-focused news organization. Spokespeople for HHS, which oversees the Food and Drug Administration, did not immediately respond to inquiries from the Chronicle about the news. Prasad resigned as the FDA's chief medical and scientific officer in late July after right-wing provocateur Laura Loomer and former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., accused him of being too liberal. He also drew backlash for criticizing the FDA's 2023 approval of a gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a degenerative muscle disease that affects boys, who often do not survive past their 20s. In his role at the FDA overseeing vaccines, Prasad announced in May that the agency would limit updated COVID-19 vaccine access to seniors and people with certain people with certain medical conditions. Previously, the FDA had recommended annual COVID shots for all Americans over 6 months old. On social media, Loomer criticized Prasad's reinstatement, calling him a 'longtime progressive Marxist.' 'In the coming weeks, I will be ramping up my exposes (sic) of officials within HHS and FDA so the American people can see more of the pay for play rot themselves and how rabid Trump haters continue to be hired in the Trump administration,' she wrote. 'Should be a good time.'
Boston Globe
10 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Why young Americans dread turning 26: health insurance chaos
But for years, Republicans have whittled away at the infrastructure of the original law. Long gone is the requirement to buy insurance. Plans sold in the online insurance marketplaces have no stringent quality standards. Costs keep rising, and eligibility requirements and subsidies are a moving target. Advertisement The erosion of the law has now created an 'insurance cliff' for Americans who are turning 26 and don't have a job that provides medical coverage. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Some, scared off by the complexity of picking a policy and by the price tags, tumble over the edge and go without insurance, in a health system where the rate for an emergency room visit can be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars. Today, an estimated 15% of 26-year-olds go uninsured, which, according to an analysis by health research group KFF, is the highest rate among Americans of any age. If they qualify, young adults can sign up for Medicaid, the federal and state program for low-income Americans, in most but not all states. Advertisement But many buy cheap subpar insurance that leaves them with insurmountable debt following a medical crisis. Others choose plans with extremely limited networks, losing access to their longtime doctors and medicines. Often they find those policies online, in what has become a dizzyingly complicated system of government-regulated insurance marketplaces. They vary in quality from state to state; some are far better than others. But they generally offer few easily identifiable, affordable and workable choices. 'The good news is that the ACA gave young people more options,' said Karen Pollitz, who directed consumer information and insurance oversight at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration. 'The bad news is the good stuff is hidden in a minefield of really bad options that'll leave you broke if you get sick.' Publicly funded counselors called 'navigators' or 'assisters' can help insurance seekers choose a plan. But those programs vary by state, and often customers don't realize that the help is available. The Trump administration has cut funding to publicize and operate those navigator programs. In addition, changes to Medicaid eligibility in the policy bill passed by Congress in July could mean that millions more enrollees lose their insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Those changes threaten the very viability of the online marketplaces, which currently provide insurance to 24 million Americans. In dozens of interviews, young adults described the unsettling and devastating consequences of having inadequate insurance, or no insurance at all. Damien Phillips, 26, a reporter at a West Virginia newspaper, considered joining the Navy to get insurance as his 26th birthday approached. Instead, he felt he 'didn't make enough to justify having health insurance' and has reluctantly gone without it. Advertisement When Ethan Evans, a 27-year-old aspiring actor in Chicago who works in retail, fell off his parents' plan and temporarily signed up for Medicaid, diminished mental health coverage meant cutting back on visits to his longtime therapist. Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., the first Generation Z member of Congress, was able to quit his job and run for office at 25 only because he could stay on his mother's plan until he turned 26, he said. Now 28, he is insured through his federal job. 'The ACA was groundbreaking legislation, including the idea that every American needs health care,' he said. 'But there are pitfalls, and one of them is that when young adults turn 26, they fall into this abyss.' Back in 2010, the decision to make 26 the cutoff age for staying on a parent's insurance was 'kind of arbitrary,' recalled Nancy-Ann DeParle, deputy chief of staff for policy in the Obama White House. 'My kids were young, and I was trying to imagine when my child would be an adult,' she said. Before that time, children were often kicked off family plans at much younger ages, typically 18. The Obama administration's idea was that by 26, young adults were most likely settling into careers and jobs with insurance. But if they still didn't have access to job-based insurance, Medicaid and the online marketplaces would offer alternatives, the thinking went. But over the years, the courts, Congress and the first Trump administration eviscerated provisions of the ACA. By 2022, a shopper on the marketplace run by the federal government had more than 100 choices, many of which included expensive trade-offs, presented in a way that made comparisons difficult without spreadsheets. Advertisement Young Invincibles, an advocacy group representing young adults, runs its own 'navigator' program to help young people choose health insurance plans. 'We hear the frustration,' said Martha Sanchez, who was until recently the group's director of health policy and advocacy. 'Twenty-six-year-olds have had negative experiences in a process that's become really complex. Many throw up their hands.' The ACA was supposed to help consumers find affordable, high-quality plans online. The legislation also tried to expand Medicaid programs, which are administered by states, as a way to provide health insurance to low-income Americans. But the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that states could not be forced to expand Medicaid. Ten states, led mostly by Republicans, have not done so, leaving up to 1.5 million Americans, who could have qualified for coverage, without insurance. Even where Medicaid is available to 26-year-olds, the transition has often proved precarious. Madeline Nelkin of New Jersey, who was studying social work, applied for Medicaid coverage before her 26th birthday in April 2024 because her university's insurance premiums were more than $5,000 annually. But it was September before her Medicaid coverage kicked in, leaving her uninsured while she fought a chest infection over the summer. 'People tell you to think ahead, but I didn't think that meant six months,' she said. When Megan Hughes, 27, of Hartland, Maine, hit the cliff, she went without. An aide for children with developmental delays, she has a thyroid condition and polycystic ovary syndrome. She looked for a health care plan but found it hard to understand the marketplace. (She didn't know there were navigators who could help.) Now she can't afford her medicine or see her endocrinologist. Advertisement 'I'm tired all the time,' Hughes said. 'My cycles are not regular anymore at all. When I do get one, it's debilitating.' She is hoping a new job will provide insurance later this year. Traditionally, most Americans with private health insurance got it through their jobs. But the job market has changed dramatically since 2010, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, with the rise of the gig economy. Over 30% of people ages 18 to 29 said in recent surveys that they were working or have worked in short-term, part-time or irregular jobs. The ACA requires organizations with 50 or more employees to offer insurance to people working 30 hours per week. This has led to a growing number of contract employees who work up to, but not past, the hourly limit. In Oklahoma, Daisy Creager, 29, has had three employers over the last three years. Insurance was important to her, not least because her former husband had Type 1 diabetes. As she left the first of those jobs, her husband's endocrinologist helped the couple stockpile less expensive insulin from Canada, since they would be uninsured. After a few months, they bought a marketplace plan, but it was expensive and 'didn't cover a lot,' she said. When she found a new job, she dropped that plan, only to discover that her new insurance coverage didn't start until the end of her first month of employment. The couple would be uninsured for a few weeks. A few days later, she came home to find her husband unconscious on the floor, in a diabetic coma. After hovering near death in an intensive care unit for four days, he woke up and began to recover. Advertisement 'I think I've done everything right,' Creager said. 'So why am I in a position where the health insurance available to me doesn't cover what I need, or I can barely afford my premiums, or worse, at times I don't even have it?' Experts agree that the marketplaces need stronger regulation. In 2023, the federal government defined clearer standards for what plans in each tier of insurance should offer, such as better prescription drug benefits, defined co-pays for X-rays, or coverage for emergency room visits. Certain types of basic care, such as primary care, should require just a small co-pay for at least a small number of initial visits. Each insurer must offer at least one plan that complies with these new standards at every tier of coverage -- an 'Easy Pricing' option or 'standard plan.' Most plans on the marketplaces don't meet these criteria. Federal and state regulators had long planned to cull such 'noncompliant' plans, but gradually, fearing that doing so too quickly would scare insurers away from participating. But with the priorities of the new Trump administration now in focus, and a Republican majority in Congress, it's far from clear what course President Donald Trump, who sought to repeal the ACA outright in his first term, will take. There are hints: Subsidies to help Americans buy insurance, adopted during the Biden administration, are set to expire at the end of 2025 if the Republican-led Congress doesn't extend them. If subsidies expire, premiums are likely to rise sharply for plans sold on the marketplaces, leaving insurance out of reach for many more young adults. This article originally appeared in
New York Post
13 hours ago
- New York Post
Trying to lose weight? This common mealtime mistake could be sabotaging your progress
Lifestyle choices impact your weight, but your genes can tip the scales, too. New research suggests that people with a higher risk for obesity may be sabotaging their efforts to slim down by making a simple mealtime mistake. The good news? Scientists found an easy switch that can help fight back against what's written in your DNA — and it's not about changing what's on your plate. Advertisement 3 While lifestyle factors like diet and exercise are crucial, genetics can influence a person's predisposition to weight gain Creativa Images – The study followed nearly 1,200 overweight and obese adults in Spain taking part in a 16-week weight-loss program. About 80% were women, with an average age of 41. Researchers calculated each person's polygenic risk score for body mass index (BMI) — a genetic measure of their obesity risk. Advertisement They also tracked when participants ate, splitting them into 'early' and 'late' eaters based on the midpoint between their first and last meals of the day. After a 12-year follow-up, participants gained 2.2% more body weight for every hour that their meal midpoint was delayed. 3 Eating earlier in the day is linked to better long-term weight loss success, researchers found. ayselucar – The researchers also found a 'significant interaction' between meal timing and genetic risk scores. Advertisement Over the study period, participants with a high genetic predisposition for obesity saw their BMI increase by more than 2 points for every hour they delayed eating. No such link was observed in those with lower genetic risk. People with both a high genetic risk and later meal times had the highest BMI, while early eaters kept theirs lower. 'These findings suggest that early eating may be especially relevant for individuals with a genetic predisposition for obesity and not for others,' the study authors wrote. 3 Projections indicate that the majority of US adults will be overweight or obese by 2050. chathuporn – Advertisement The implications are serious. Across the country, more than 100 million adults have obesity, and over 22 million have severe obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This extra weight increases their risk for a wide range of chronic health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and even some cancers. It also drives up healthcare costs. In 2019, adults with obesity spent an average of $1,861 more per year on medical care than those at a healthy weight. For those with severe obesity, excess costs topped $3,000 per person. Without strong interventions, the problem is only expected to grow worse. While surveys have found that many overweight Americans want to slim down, research shows that conventional methods like calorie restriction often fail to keep the weight off long-term. The study authors said that understanding the link between genetic risk for obesity and meal timing could pave the way for personalized prevention and targeted behavioral interventions in the future. One example they highlighted is precision nutrition, which designs eating plans based on a person's DNA, microbiome, and metabolic responses — moving beyond the one-size-fits-all approach.
