夏令时将于11月1日凌晨2点结束。今年夏天，众议院通过了《2025年阳光保护法案》，该法案将使夏令时全年永久生效。这项法案以308票赞成、117票反对获得通过，得到了两党支持。
Daylight saving time ends at 2:00 a.m. on Nov. 1. This summer, the House passed the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, which would make it permanent year-round. The 308-117 vote drew support from across the aisle.
这是自参议院于2021年一致同意通过《2021年阳光保护法案》以来，国会通过的首个相关法案。然而，如果国会在中期选举后重陷立法停滞，2025年法案可能永远无法成为法律，再次给部分人带来虚假希望，浪费美国民众的时间。
This is the first bill to pass in Congress since the Senate passed the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021 with unanimous consent. Yet if Congress falls back into legislative inertia after the midterms, the 2025 bill may never become law, giving false hope for some and wasting the American people’s time once again.
鉴于两个法案的相似性，2025年法案在理论上应在参议院顺利通过。但2021年参议院法案是在出席人数稀少的会议上通过的，事后有议员表示担忧。如今，当时约五分之三的参议员仍在任；理论上，这一群体足以将2025年法案推向成法。总统表示，如果法案送达其案头，他将签署成法，甚至曾因参议员汤姆·科顿（共和党-阿肯色州）在参议院不支持该法案而斥责他。
Given the similarities between the two bills, the 2025 version should in theory have no problem passing in the Senate. But the 2021 Senate bill was passed during a sparsely attended session, with some members expressing concern after the fact. Today, around three-fifths of those Senate members remain in office; on paper, this group may be sufficient to pass the 2025 bill into law. The president will sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk, and has even chastised Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for not supporting it in the Senate.
如果问题仅在于停止调整时钟，1966年的《统一时间法》已允许各州或领地选择全年采用永久标准时间——但不允许全年采用夏令时。亚利桑那州和夏威夷州是仅有的两个采用全年标准时间的州，波多黎各和美属维尔京群岛等几个领地也采用了这一做法。
If simply stopping clock-changes were the issue, the Uniform Time Act of 1966 already permits this, giving every state or territory the option to adopt permanent standard time year-round — but not year-round daylight saving time. Arizona and Hawaii are the only two states to adopt year-round standard time, as have several territories, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
历史上，民众明确偏好夏令时，因为它全年提供更多傍晚光照、更少早晨光照。但睡眠研究人员不支持这一观点，他们主张标准时间更符合调节睡眠模式和其他生理功能的昼夜节律，因此全年标准时间是更健康的选择。
Historically, people have expressed a clear preference for daylight saving time, which provides more light year-round in the evening hours and less light in the morning hours. This is not supported by sleep researchers, who claim that standard time is more aligned with circadian rhythms that regulate sleep patterns and other biological functions, making year-round standard time the healthier alternative.
一般来说，城市或州距离赤道越远，全年季节性光照变化的影响就越显著。佛罗里达州的城市全年光照变化极小，而缅因州和华盛顿州等北方州份的城市则经历剧烈变化。事实上，在春分和秋分期间，西雅图每天的日照时长变化约为三到四分钟。阿拉斯加州的城市，如朱诺和安克雷奇，经历的变化甚至更为显著。这种南北差异确保了无法让所有人都完全满意。
In general, the further away a city or state is from the equator, the more pronounced the effect of seasonal light changes across the calendar. Cities in Florida experience minimal light variation year-round, whereas cities in northern states like Maine and Washington see abrupt changes. In fact, day-to-day light changes during the vernal and autumnal equinoxes in Seattle are around three to four minutes per day. Cities in Alaska, like Juneau and Anchorage, experience even more pronounced shifts. This northern-southern tension ensures that no one can be completely happy.
这就是为什么加拿大冻结时钟的做法给我们自己的国家敲响了警钟。四个西部省份中的三个（曼尼托巴省、阿尔伯塔省和不列颠哥伦比亚省）以及西北地区均选择了永久夏令时，而萨斯喀彻温省和育空地区则选择了永久标准时间。这意味着萨斯喀彻温省的时间现在与阿尔伯塔省完全一致。向东看，安大略省和魁北克省——这两个拥有全国逾60%人口的省份——继续沿用季节性调整。
That is why Canada’s efforts to freeze its clocks offer a yellow flag to our own country. Three of the four western provinces (Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia) and the Northwest Territories have all opted for permanent daylight saving time, whereas Saskatchewan and the Yukon have chosen permanent standard time. This means that Saskatchewan’s time now aligns exactly with Alberta’s. Moving east, Ontario and Quebec, home to more than 60 percent of the country’s population, continue to use seasonal changes.
那么，参议院将如何处理2025年《阳光保护法案》？大概率什么都不做。它将在委员会中搁置，等待时间流逝，直到新一届国会当选并最终于1月就职。这将迫使新一批众议院议员重启2025年法案，将其通过并移交参议院，在那里它很可能再次被拖延。
So what will the Senate do with the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025? Likely nothing. It will die in committee and wait out the clock until the new Congress is elected and eventually seated in January. This will force a new group of House members to resurrect the 2025 bill, pass it and move it onto the Senate, where it will likely be delayed again.
众议院和参议院都不希望签署任何终结季节性调整时钟的法案成为法律。犯错的长期风险（是选择夏令时还是标准时间）远大于做出选择的短期利益。公众在两个选项之间摇摆不定，对夏令时的偏好略高。特朗普愿意签署最新法案，使他免于卷入围绕该问题的政治纷争。
Neither the House nor the Senate wants any bill signed into law that ends seasonal clock changes. The long-term risk of being wrong (daylight saving time versus standard time) is far greater than the short-term benefits of making a choice. People vacillate between the two options, with a slight preference for daylight saving time. Trump willingness to sign the most recent bill keeps him out of the political fray surrounding the issue.
这意味着我们确实将按计划在11月1日调整时钟，并于2027年3月14日再次切换到夏令时。如果对调整时钟的反感才是真正的问题，那么标准时间对每个州来说依然可用。
What all this means is that we will indeed change our clocks on Nov. 1 as scheduled, and switch to daylight saving time again on March 14, 2027. If aversion to clock changes is really the issue, standard time remains available to every state.
尽管普遍偏好夏令时，但1973年尼克松总统任内最后一次尝试时，夏令时并不受欢迎。最常被提及的问题是，孩子们被迫在黑暗中上学。1974年10月，夏令时被废除。虽然将上学时间推迟一小时本可解决该问题，但这同样带来巨大的后勤挑战。
Despite general preference for daylight saving time, it proved unpopular when last tried under President Nixon in 1973. The problem cited most often was that children were forced to go to school in the dark. It was repealed in October 1974. Although a shift of the school day by one hour would have resolved that issue, that too carries with it massive logistical challenges.
显然，没有压力去通过一项可能在通过后不久就需要废除的法律。即使是提出的“折中方案”——即调整30分钟——也将面临立法阻力，尽管它可能安抚部分人。
Clearly, there is no pressure to enact a law that may need to be undone shortly after it is passed. Even a proposed 30-minute split-the difference solution would face legislative headwinds, though it may appease some.
来自加拿大实施时间设定的明确警示，可能是导致政治僵局与地理优先考量相互交织、造成不作为并让时间流逝的原因。解决相邻州边境跨境出行问题需要深思熟虑。确实，这不仅仅是拖延——这是最稳妥的政治路径。
A clear warning from Canada’s time-setting implementation may be why political gridlock, coupled with geographic priorities, fuels inaction and lets the clock run out. Addressing travel across adjacent state borders demands thoughtful consideration. Indeed, it is not just procrastination — it is the safest political path to tread.
谢尔登·H·雅各布森博士是伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳-香槟分校计算机科学教授。他运用数据驱动、基于风险的决策专长来评估并为公共政策提供参考。
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of Computer Science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.