I think sunset provisions make eminent sense where there is the creation of a new spending program by a level of government to review it to see if that spending program merits support in the future instead of becoming an entitlement program. However, I think it does not fit a procedure by which we will be limiting the passing of certain bills. I think the two just do not fit together. I would like to speak more generally on the last several comments I have heard and what the gist of them seems to me to be, Mr. Chairman, is that we are moving too fast, and we do not know all of the ramifications of bills we are considering.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of sunset provisions in spending programs during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Adam Schiff
If prosecuting cases involving the risk of injuries or death to premature infants are not a priority enforcement matter, I have questions about what priorities the DOJ considers worthy of pursuing.
Most of the Administration’s $87 billion supplement spending request would defray costs incurred as a result of the President’s decision to go to war with Iran, a war not authorized by Congress or supported by the American people. That…
“The Supreme Court has lost the trust of the American people, and Justices accepting lavish gifts from wealthy individuals with business before the court has only made matters worse.
It's critical that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and with full transparency and oversight, but removing billions in federal funding from another California project is not the right approach.





