Congress, the idea of a sunset clause is not so important.

First of all, let me make two points about the sunset clause.

The sunset clause is also a good means to this end.

In addition, all new programs will be subject to a sunset clause.

However, its use is only on very specific issues and can also have a sunset clause.

The dispute was over whether the Bill should have a sunset clause.

It is important to note the committee did not accept a sunset clause for the whole of the bill.

I should like to address a number of specific questions, such as the comment on the sunset clause.

First, we want to see far more sunset clauses in new legislation.

The Commission also highlighted the need for a sunset clause.

It is difficult to think of any reasonable argument against a "sunset clause".

It made a terrible mistake by not putting in a sunset clause.

A sunset clause would eliminate the need to take further legislative action at that time.

We all agree with and are grateful for the proposal to include a sunset clause.

He mentioned its temporary nature and pointed to the 'sunset clause'.

I think that we'll all fastened on this sunset clause idea because of the American system.

There has been a 20 year or generational sunset clause suggested out west.

These laws have a sunset clause of ten years.

One amendment agreed to by the government is a sunset clause; the law must be renewed in three years' time.

We therefore do not need to use sunset clauses.

In their report the Committee recommended that the sunset clause be repealed.

Add a sunset clause to the television picture tube provision (section 60.5).

The same can be said about the comitology procedure and the sunset clause.

First, the insertion of a sunset clause, which the Commission had not proposed.

Civil liberties and other groups argued successfully for a "sunset clause"