Ron DeSantis

I think this rule is going to have a chilling effect on speech.

this rule cannot stand; it is way over-broad, it will chill core First Amendment speech.

you chill these 501(c)(4)s from getting involved in different issues.

I don't think Government should be in the speech police business generally, but certainly you shouldn't have the IRS doing this.

The justifications that have been offered in defense of the President's conduct have ranged from weak to completely baseless.

The framers of the Constitution considered the protection of individual liberty to be the primary function of government.

Under our Constitution, the President cannot amend, suspend, or ignore duly-enacted, constitutionally-valid laws.

The Constitution delegates no legislative authority to the President.

When we are talking about President Obama's failure to faithfully execute, that option is not available.

It is often said that ours is a government of laws, not of men.

I just wanted to thank the chairman for taking the time to organize this, set this up.

So we are spending trillions of dollars to really make only a minor dent in the number of people who run insurance.

We are the only line of defense for the American taxpayer to keep track of this.

Now we know, and I know that there was some fraud in that because they jiggered the spending versus the taxes to make it appear like it would reduce the deficit.

It just seems to me that understanding the nature of this regime, we may never be able to actually have an agreement that works, just given who they are, but why would you go easy on sanctions?

I have never asked something of you like this, but please, each one of you should go on the record with the President, the future President, as to what your red lines are.

I mean, when I am hearing these things and people say that trying to move forward with sanctions is tantamount to saying that we need to invade Iran to me is just not acceptable.

So I think the red line for Congress should be no enrichment.

I think this needs to be a proactive priority, of course, for the Congress, but also for the administration.

the notion that you are going to get a nuclear agreement with a regime who will not even return a pastor who is wrongly imprisoned, give me a break.

We passed in the House a bill that would have grandfathered in the plans, and I think that we should do that.

I may suffer political damage. So I am going to do it anyway.

I don't believe--I could see how some people because of the sanctions would see a need from an Iranian perspective to have a deal, but I just don't think somebody who is representing the regime's perspective would actually believe that…

Which is exactly why my skepticism remains, because, from their perspective, getting involved in these negotiations... is just buying them time.

There was a decision by the Administration, a knowing decision, to launch a website that did not work and indeed, was not adequately tested for security.