Mark Meadows

Essentially, the reinsurance fund is a large transfer from the vast majority of Americans without an Obamacare insurance plan to the few Americans with an Obamacare plan?

We should not bailout insurance companies to mask the fact that Obamacare is a disaster and hurts Americans. This hearing shows exactly why.

The way I guess the ACA was supposed to reduce health care costs, now we are happy that the increases are only in the single digits.

Over the past few years, we have argued that Obamacare was going to disrupt the insurance markets. This health care law has become a perfect example of how not to do health insurance reform.

There needs to be a bipartisan effort to pass legislation that this should be revenue neutral in keeping with the original intent of the law?

If that is the case, then is it fair to make the assumption that the rates that many people are paying today are artificially lower than what they may be after the risk corridors run their course?

I would say if I were getting into the insurance business right now and competing against a big boy, that is what I would do.

As time goes on, the healthier will do that.

So it is amazing how somebody at your agency could figure out what the original intent of those who passed the law would be.

Do not give up hope because there was a gentleman by the name of William Wilberforce many years ago that, day in and day out, fought to abolish slavery.

Ultimately we have two objectives. One is to get the politics out of it, to speed up the process and become transparent with the American people.

But according to your testimony, you said it should be based on statutory exemptions in FOIA or other applicable laws, policies, and regulations.

I guess my concern is if we are going about this new classification, how many rules and regulations are we going to eliminate?

I think the American people deserve transparency, and any time that that doesn't happen, whether it is intentional or not, it gives a level of distrust.

Thank you for your continued work on this.

I am committed to continuing to work for Internet freedom, for the ability to make sure that when firewalls are circumvented, that they stay circumvented.

Truly, voices like yours will not be drowned out, not in 25 years, not in 50 years, if we continue to make sure that the truth is known.

Someday the Chinese must see that the rule of law and a free press and independent courts are needed to promote some of their own concrete interests, economic and political.

I don't know how long China can go on censoring in the age of information and yet progress with its economy.

I think we should pursue exchanges, for example, on the rule of law and the environment, some of these 'safer' subjects which promote a more pluralistic society.

I have been in Foreign Affairs Committee hearings where I've had girls who can't see their fathers that brought tears to my eyes.

It's very troubling because that message of freedom does not get out if there is not a freedom of the press.

The passion of which you have heard me today is not meant to be directed at you. It is a passion based on a number of people back in my district that potentially will lose their jobs.

The law says that they need a decision in 90 days. Is that law being violated? And who makes the choice on what laws we enforce and what laws we ignore?

That is a taking, in my book.