The biannual shift between standard time and Daylight Saving Time in the U.S. is seen as a nuisance by many. Should we make longer days permanent?

The Senate unanimously approved a measure Tuesday to make Daylight Saving Time permanent. If the bill, titled the Sunshine Protection Act, becomes law, Americans would never again be told to set their clocks back an hour in the fall and forward an hour in the spring. The bill has solid bipartisan support, with several Republican and Democratic cosponsors. Currently, 41 of the 48 states that observe daylight saving time (DST) are considering changes that would end the practice of changing between DST and standard time. Supporters often highlight research that suggests positive physical and mental health effects of longer daylight, and negative effects of earlier sunsets. Opponents typically focus on how extended daylight also means the sun rises later.

Many across the political spectrum support ending the back-and-forth and making daylight last longer. Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) wrote an op-ed for CNN (Left bias) this week in support of making DST permanent, calling the switching between DST and standard time "a senseless and outdated government policy." Two writers for National Review argued last year for adopting Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) and universal "true time" based around the Sun's position in the sky. Others criticize how making DST permanent would mean the sun would rise later in the winter, thus making mornings darker.