Remarks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Summit in Nashua, New Hampshire
[joined in progress]
Paul: ...sometimes people will ask me, Why did you decide to run for office? And I tell them I got tired of throwing things at the televisision. [laughter]
But the real answer is, I actually got tired of looking up and seeing people in my party get in charge and then not really doing what they promised to do. [applause]
I was disappointed that Republicans doubled the size of the debt when we were in charge. I was disappointed that Republican doubled the size of the Department of Education. I was disappointed the Republicans were even supporting Common Core. I was disappointed that Republicans were voting for bank bailouts.
And so I said, I've either got to do something or shut up. I got to either complain, quit throwing TV — things at my TV, or I've got to show up and try to participate.
And so I had a decision to make, and it wasn't an easy decision. I'm a physician. I live in a small town, Bowling Green, Kentucky, about 50,000 people. And I do eye surgery, and I really loved what I did. I spent a lot of my life trying to get into medical school, training and becoming a doctor, and so I miss it.
Sometimes when I'm frustrated, I still go back and I still do some practice. So last year, I went to Guatemala. And there's a difference between being in politics and looking at the results and being in medicine and looking at the results.
When we were in Guatemala, we were with the University of Utah, and we did about 200 cataract surgeries. One man sticks out in my memory. He was about my age, actually, or a little older. People get cataracts pretty young down there. And he was completely blind. He had lost everything. He lost his wife. He lost 40 pounds. He lost his house. He lost his kids. He had nothing. The church had taken him in, but he was completely and totally functionally blind.
But the next day, when we took his patch off, to see the look on his face and the tears of joy and see him fall to his knees and thanking God for getting his vision back, I was, like, Man, this is a lot better than Washington. [laughter]
The only time they ever thank God in Washington is when Congress is not in session. [applause]
There is a difference, though. There is a big difference. I think maybe sometimes, we may need more of a physician's perspective, a perspective that we can solve problems, figure out the problems and get to a solution somehow, get something done.
But so often, it doesn't seem to happen that way. Groucho Marx put it this way. He said the art of politics is looking for problems everywhere, finding them, misdiagnosing them, and applying the wrong remedy.
So often, we pick politicians who all look alike. They all sound alike. They all dress alike. And guess what? Nothing ever changes! Government gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
So we ask ourselves — we have a decision now. We need to find someone who is going to represent us, someone who's going to be the leader of the Republican Party and make the country a better place.
How are we going to get that? Some in our party say, Well, let's just dilute the message. Let's become Democrat lite, and then we'll get more votes.
I couldn't disagree more. I think what we need to do is be boldly for what we are for! [applause]
We used to be the party that believed in smaller government in Washington, which means lower taxes. When's the last time you heard a Republican run for president who said they were going to cut taxes or actually follow through with it? Our last two nominees — I don't remember any tax cuts being part of their program at all.
I'm in Washington now and I listen to them. The Republicans in charge of all of these committees — you know what they want? Revenue-neutral tax reform. I tell people, if that's what we're for, I'm going home. If that's all we're for is revenue-neutral tax reform, that means half of you are going to pay more and half of you pay less, and the net effect for the economy is zero.
Why don't we be Reagan Republicans again? Why don't we cut taxes for everybody? [applause]
I think we can have manufacturing jobs in our country again, and one of the ways we can do it is by becoming competitive. People aren't going to build stuff here. Companies aren't going to be here if the taxes are higher than the rest of the world.
Our corporate income tax is 35 percent. So people don't want to incorporate in America anymore. They want to incorporate overseas. And even the great American companies that are making a lot of profit, they make profit here and they're making it around the world. They won't bring it home. There's $2 trillion of American profits sitting overseas.
What I have proposed — and we've done this one time before — what I've proposed is let's lower the rate dramatically to encourage that money to come home. I think there's $600 billion to $700 billion that could come home as a cash infusion, a private stimulus for the marketplace.
What I would do with the taxes on that — I would tax it at a low rate, but then I'd take the tax revenue and I'd put it in the highway fund. We're $15 billion short in the highway fund every year.
They call it the Highway Trust Fund. Here's a news alert. There is no trust in the trust fund. We're $15 billion short. I think we could actually lower tax, bring money home and build roads all at the same time. I think it's a win, win, win. [applause]
I think that's an example of not diluting our message but looking for common ground. My co-sponsor is Barbara Boxer. Now, she and I don't agree on a lot, but we do agree that cutting this tax rate will bring more money home for infrastructure.
The president wants more money for infrastructure. I raised my hand at the White House and said I'll help. You voted for this in 2005. The president voted for the same concept for one year, and I said, I'll help. I've got a bill, Mr. President. Will you help? Maybe not so much anymore, but we'll see.
We're going to try to put it on the highway bill. Maybe he won't veto the highway bill. If so, we could actually cut our tax and have more revenue coming in.
The other reason why I think we ought to be actually tax cuts — why don't we be for tax cuts to help poor people? If you want to help Detroit — Detroit's got 20 percent unemployment. It's devastation. You've got abandoned housing everywhere.
If you want to help Detroit, why don't we leave more money in Detroit? So I have something called economic freedom zones. It's kind of like what Jack Kemp talked about years ago, but I say it's John Kemp's plan on steroids.
We lower the rate of federal taxes, but if you live in an area of poverty, to almost zero, and we do it for 10 years. There are some employment requirements. You got to hire some people who live in these poor areas to try to help. But for Detroit alone, it would be $1.3 billion. For Appalachia, my state, the poor rural folks that live in the mountains, be nearly a billion dollars.
So then we can have a plan for poverty. We can have a plan for poor people. We can have a plan for unemployment. And instead of, let's say, Oh, well, we can get all the votes of people who own business — we're already doing that. If you want to win elections, you got to get the people who work for the people owning the businesses.
You got to get out there and say, How are you going to help unemployment? And you could just be like the Democrats and create a new government program, or we could be like Republicans of old and be for tax cuts to help the poor.
I think we could create millions of jobs again. When Reagan did this in the early '80s, we created over 20 million jobs. I think a lot of the jobs in the '90s were still being created because of the policies of Reagan in the '80s. To win again, for us to be the dominant party, for us to win not just Texas, not just Georgia, for us to win Ohio, for us to win Michigan, for us to win Pennsylvania, Colorado, all these purple states — New Hampshire — to win these purple states that aren't so easy anymore, I think we need to be the party that defends the entire bill of rights. [applause]
We've been — we've been pretty good at defending the 2nd Amendment. You probably won't see anybody coming through here who's not for defending the 2nd Amendment. OK, maybe one or two, but — most of them are going to come through here, and they're for defending the 2nd Amendment. So am I. But you know what? I also want to defend the 4th Amendment. In fact, I don't think you can defend the 2nd Amendment if you don't defend the 4th Amendment. [applause]
I'm a Republican who does believe in the right to privacy as enshrined in the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment says you can't get into someone's records without naming the person, naming the records, and going to a judge, an independent judge, and saying, I've got probable cause of a crime.
But it doesn't mean collecting 300 million people's phone records. The 4th Amendment is not consistent with a warrant that says "Mr. Verizon on" it. Last I heard, Mr. Verizon's not a person, and collecting hundreds of millions of records is not right.
I tell people, Look, your phone records are yours. You have a privacy interest you maintain no matter who's holding them. Your phone records are yours. And the government — it's none of their damn business what you're doing on your phone. [applause]
You can say "damn" in New Hampshire, can't you? [laughter]
We got to defend the 4th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment. You know what? We need to defend the 5th Amendment. 5th Amendment says everybody gets due process, no matter who you are. Government can't take your stuff, your property, your things without just compensation. And you say, Well, surely they don't. [laughter]
Civil forfeiture — this is where the government can take your stuff without you ever being convicted of a crime. The Washington Post has done a series on this for the last six months. You know what they found? Disproportionately, the people affected by it it are minorities. Disproportionately, the people affected by it are poor. Disproportionately, they're people who live in cities where the police have more patrols. I'll give you an example. Cris Sourovelis lives in Philadelphia. His teenage son was selling $40 worth of illegal drugs. OK, punish the kid. Do something to the kid.
You know what they did? They came and barricaded the house and took the house and evicted the family from the house. Often, this is a poor family living in the city. The only one that's holding the family together is Grandmother, who owns the house. And her grandkid's selling marijuana out of the back, and you're going to take Grandma's house? It is insane. It ought to stop.
But you know who is the biggest purveyor of it? You know who's the biggest hero of civil forfeiture and who defended it recently in committee hearings? Loretta Lynch. Loretta Lynch confiscated — this is the main reason I oppose her. She confiscated... [applause]
Loretta Lynch, as U.S. attorney in Manhattan, confiscated over $100 million worth of people's stuff, with no conviction. She went one step further. We passed a reform about 10 years ago letting prosecutors know that they had to file paperwork so the person whose stuff had been taken could get a lawyer and could get a time certain for a date and trial. She took their stuff and never filed the paperwork on purpose so the clock would never start.
One company, the Hirsch brothers, were a snack food candy company. She took a half a million dollars from them and kept it for two years.
This shouldn't happen in America. I'm part of a movement and part of a bill that says we will reverse and turn justice back the way it should be, that in our country, you should be presumed innocent until found guilty. [applause]
Realize that the people you're often talking to, and that we will be talking to if we defend the entire Bill of Rights — the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment – may not be the people who've been listening to us so far, may not already be Republicans, but they may want someone to champion their cause.
Kalief Browder comes to mind. The New Yorker did a story on Kalief Browder a couple months ago. Kalief Browder's a 16-year-old black kid in the Bronx. He's poor. He's so poor that when he was arrested, parents couldn't make $3,000 bail.
He spent three years in Rikers, a 16-year-old kid. I don't know if he was guilty or not, but in America, nobody deserves to be in prison for three years without a trial date. 6th Amendment says you get a trial. It also says you get a speedy trial.
I don't know what happened to him in prison. I can only imagine. But he tried to commit suicide four times. This should not happen America. It's disproportionately happening to African-Americans, to Hispanics, to poor people, to people who live in cities who are crowded, where the police come more often, are being treated this way.
You know what? If we were all of a sudden the party that cared about the entire Bill of Rights — nobody on the Democrat side's been doing a damn thing about this. All of a sudden, if we were the party of the entire Bill of Rights, the party that was once the party of emancipation, became the party of the entire Bill of Rights again, I think you'd see a sea change. [applause]
People ask me, what's the worst thing going on in Washington? Is it "Obama care"? Is it what the president's done to immigration or war powers? And I say, frankly, it's all of the above, but the category I would lump it all under is that the separation of powers is collapsing.
Our founding fathers were so prescient in the sense that they said, we're going to set up these coequal branches. And Madison said, we will pit ambition against ambition. That the ambition to maintain power through the legislature will be pitting against the courts and pitted against the president. Everyone will jealously guard their power.
Guess what? Not so much anymore. This is one of the most disappointing things about partisan politics, is Democrats just side with the president. They're not going to stand up to him on immigration because they like what he did. And I think you should stand up to him even if you agree with what he did because you can't have a president who just creates the law on his own!
One of our philosophers that our founding fathers looked to was Montesquieu. And Montesquieu wrote and said that when the executive begins to legislate, a form of tyranny will ensue. And people say all the time, well, the president, you know, he's a good man. He won't do anything wrong. That's what his supporters say. [laughter]
All right, we'll get beyond that. But here's the thing, is even if you want to accept that, the reason we have rules as for who comes along after that. Madison also said that if government were comprised of angels, we wouldn't have to have any rules or restraint.
This is the same kind of thing that went on — a few years ago, we had a debate. In 2011, we had a debate over whether or not an American citizen could be detained without a trial. And people said, well, we've got get terrorists, so we just have to do this. And I said, well, you realize the terrorist could be you. Some of the descriptions of who terrorists might be are people who have changed the color of their hair recently. Anybody in the room? I'm not going to ask. No, that's too personal. [laughter]
All right, stains on your clothing, likes to pay in cash, has ammunition at home, has more than one weapon at home. You think there might be a time when you might say, I want my trial, I want my lawyer, and I want my due process?
But we had this debate in the Senate, and you'll hear from some of these people because when you hear the loudest critics of me, these are these people. One of them said, well, when they ask for a lawyer, you just tell them shut up. Really? That's the kind of discourse we're going to have in our country, when someone asks for a lawyer in our country, you're going to tell them to shut up?
The thing is, is that this debate went on. One of the other senators said, Well — I acted incredulous. I said, you think — you would send an American citizen to Guantanamo Bay without a trial, without a lawyer? He said, yes, if they're dangerous. I said, sort of begs the question, doesn't it? Who gets to decide who's dangerous and who's not dangerous?
Have there been a time in our history when we decided who was dangerous based on the color of your skin? Has there been a time in our history when we decided someone was dangerous because of different beliefs, didn't look like us or had a different religion? Are we going to give up on our right to trial so easily?
I think of Richard Jewell. Remember Richard Jewell? Everybody said he was the Olympic bomber. The media convicted him. In fact, he won millions of dollars from the media because they convicted him within hours. He fit the profile. He had a backpack on. He was an introvert. He wore glasses.
My goodness! Whoo! We're going to be arresting a lot of people.
So he's arrested oh he isn't arrested but he's convicted in the media, but he didn't do it. He wasn't the bomber. He had nothing to do with the bombing.
But I tell people, the reason why you have due process — think about if Richard Jewell had been a black man in 1920 in the South, what would have happened to him. He might not have survived the day.
We were once the party of the Bill of Rights! Let's be that party again because it's the party of the unpopular. The Bill of Rights is more for the unpopular than anyone else. The high school quarterback's always going to do — everything goes well for the high school quarterback. Everything goes well for the prom queen. The Bill of Rights is for the least among us. It's for the least popular among us. It's for the potential... [applause]
Of all the things that's gone on in the last six years, of all the scandals — and when I think of those scandals, I think of Old McDonald's farm of scandals. Here a scandal, there a scandal, everywhere a scandal. [laughter]
But when I think of the scandals, the one that probably bothers me the most is Benghazi. [applause]
The reason is this. We have a potential nominee on the other side who wants to be the commander-in-chief. There is a bar you must cross. Will you defend the country? Will you provide security when it's requested?
To me, it has nothing to do with the talking points. Everybody talked about the talking points. That was spin. It was disingenuous. It was politics as normal. But that to me wasn't so important.
Even the day of, I could grant that mistakes could be made, and maybe we couldn't get adequate support there because of the distance. However, someone made the mistake of having the support systems too far away. Someone should be told about that and it should be corrected.
But really, what I fault Hillary Clinton for most is, is that for nine months, they pleaded. Day in, day out they pleaded for help. In February, you have a six-man — or six-person special operations unit brought home. A month later, another six-person operation unit brought home. You get to April, and they're saying — this is the ambassador, Stevens — We want a DC-3 to go to get around the plane in case of emergency. And as you recall, when the emergency came, they were begging the Libyans to use a plane.
So they didn't get the plane. Hillary Clinton's State Department turns down the plane. And you know what she approved three days later? An electrical charging station for the Chevy Volt... [laughter]
— for the embassy in Vienna. It seems the ambassador in Vienna was greening up the place, wanted to show off how green he was. So he got Chevy Volts, which you all paid to subsidize. We send them over there. Then they discovered the plug doesn't work. So we spend another $100,000 on charging stations to prove how green we are, and yet not enough money for a 50-year-old plane to fly the ambassador around in case of emergency.
This goes on all summer long. Hillary Clinton's State Department sent three comedians to India on the "make chai not war" tour. [laughter]
She spent $650,000 on Facebook ads. It seems the State Department does not have enough likes on their Facebook. [laughter]
She spent $5 million on crystal barware. All along, not enough money for security. Time after time after time, the soldiers were told not to wear their military-style boots because they didn't want to offend the Libyans. They didn't want a show of weapons because it's politically incorrect to show weapons. They were in the middle of a war zone, which gets me even farther back. Why the hell did we ever go into Libya in the first place? [applause]
This is something, if you watch closely, will separate me from many other Republicans. The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would have just done the same thing just 10 times over. Every one of the ones who will criticize me wanted troops on the ground, our troops on the ground in Libya.
I think it was a mistake to be in Libya. We are less safe. Jihadists swim in our swimming pool now! It's a disaster! We should have never been there! [applause]
So we go through the summer. Security request after security request denied, denied, denied. We get to August. Ambassador Stevens is sending his own cables directly to Hillary Clinton — we are worried about being overrun by the jihadists.
So when she came before my committee, that's the question I asked her. I said, Mrs. Clinton, did you read the cables? And her answer was, like, oh, no, that's way below my pay grade. Really? Libya is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, and you didn't read the cables directly from the ambassador?
I think that her dereliction of duty, her not doing her job, her not providing security for our forces, for our diplomatic missions should forever preclude her from holding higher office! [applause]
Thank you. Thanks you.
If we want to protect and continue our prosperity at home, we do have to defend ourselves. Without question, the number one priority of the federal government is national defense. When I look at spending, no matter what it is, I think the priority is defending the country. It's the one thing you have to do at the federal level. [applause]
But we have to decide when getting involved is good and when it's not so good. There's a group of folks in our party who think it's always good. There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more. There's people in our party who supported giving arms to Gadhafi before they supported giving arms to the freedom fighters, who turned out to be al Qaeda.
So the thing is, is I'm not saying don't be involved around the world. I'm not saying don't defend our interests. We do have to do something. But think about it. As a physician, we're taught first do no harm. Think about it before we get involved. Libya was a mistake. In fact, if you can say one thing that is probably true in the Middle East, every time we have toppled a secular dictator, a secular strongman, we've gotten chaos and the rise of radical Islam.
If we want to defend our country, we have to know the enemy, and we have to name the enemy! [applause]
The president won't name the enemy, but I will. It's radical Islam. Until we name it, we cannot defeat them. And I can tell you this, that if I'm ever the commander-in-chief, I will do everything it takes to stop and defend the country against radical Islam. [applause]
As we move forward in the process, you'll hear from a lot of folks from all different spectrums of the party. But one thing I'd like to leave with you is I'd like you to think about how we're going to move forward and how we're going to win. And I think we need to stay true to principle. I don't think we need to dilute our message, but I do think that our message needs to be carried to new people.
We need to talk to... [applause]
We need to talk to business owners. We need to talk to the workers. We need to talk to rich, poor, white, black, brown. We've got to get out there and go places we haven't been going.
And as we take our message forward, as we proclaim our message, I like to think of the image of — Robert Henri was a painter, and he said to young painters, he said, "Paint like a man coming over the hill singing." I think when we proclaim our message with the passion of Patrick Henry, but also like a man coming over the hill singing, then I think we'll be the dominant party again.
Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you. [applause]
Do we have time?
Unknown Speaker: [off-mike]
Unknown Speaker: [off-mike]
Paul: OK, I'm told we have time for two or three questions, as long as they're easy questions. [laughter]
Unknown Speaker: [off-mike] Unknown Speaker: On the day that Hillary Clinton announced that she was running for president, Elizabeth Warren was on television announcing that she was not running for president. Do you believe that the Democrats will run Elizabeth Warren as Hillary's vice president? And if so, how do we respond to that challenge?
Paul: I'm starting to worry that when Hillary Clinton travels, there's going to need to be two planes, one for her and her entourage and one for her baggage. [applause]
I'm concerned that the plane with the baggage is really getting heavy and teetering. [laughter]
And I'm concerned really that there probably will end up being more of a primary than anybody thinks over there because here's the thing. I mean, the whole e-mail thing — she just sort of above the rules. She doesn't have to use a government server. And it's, like, Oh, well, the — my server was protected by the Secret Service. Does she think there's, like, floppy disks in her basement? [laughter]
I mean, I'm — there's a lot going on. There's more coming, too. The Clinton Foundation's been involved in a lot of things, so have their donors. There's going to be a lot of conflict of interest.
And I think it really — if she wants to be this candidate that proclaims about women's rights, taking money from Saudi Arabia, Brunei — a woman... [applause]
A few years ago, a woman was raped, gang raped by seven men in Saudi Arabia. They arrested the woman and probably gave her 90 lashes for being in a car with an unmarried man.
Does anybody remember South Africa and apartheid and how everybody rose up and people quit investing? You'd think she'd be leading a disinvestment program against Saudi Arabia instead of taking their money.
But she's got a lot going on, so I think it'll be more spirited. Probably maybe Elizabeth Warren's not running, but I wouldn't preclude anybody yet in the Democrat primary because I think there's a lot going on over there. And she's had a pretty difficult month or two. I think she's going to have more when she finally starts taking questions.
Unknown Speaker: Woman in the red right here.
Unknown Speaker: Hi. This is probably more of a states question, but you made me think of it when you brought up the house in Detroit and how it was taken from the grandmother, and we have seen several situations lately. In fact, there was one right in the Boston area, where a child goes into the hospital. The doctor and the parents disagree, and the child is taken away from the parents, not for good reason.
And then the courts get involved, and the child's away from parents for a year-and-a-half. In Arkansas, it's happening because it's a home schooling situation.
Is there anything presidential level or senatorial level that — these kind of things — we're not talking about children...
Unknown Speaker: [off-mike]
Paul: Well, I think — I — I'm very aware of the circumstances you're talking about. And I can tell you, like with home schooling, in my state, I have a friend who was home schooled 30 years ago, and his parents were arrested. This was before any of the laws changed. But it sparked the change in law. And Kentucky was one of the first states to allow home schooling. But his parents were indicted and were threatened with a year in prison, were on their way towards court when the legislature finally changed the law.
Some of this stuff with medical questions gets very complicated, but I would courts would want to start out with parental rights, and it'd be very, very rare, if ever, that children taken away from parents. But you can't say never because there are — there are times when it happens. But I'm a big believer in the family and that the rights originate from the family.
Unknown Speaker: Last question. We'll go right here [off-mike]
Unknown Speaker: Thank you for coming to New Hampshire, Senator. Recent reports indicate that ISIS has camps just south of the border, and some people say they're actually in the United States in camps.
The military doctrine of the United States is to attack them before they get that close to our borders. Will you use military force to prevent ISIS from moving closer to us?
Paul: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is, is that in December of this year, I actually introduced a declaration of war against ISIS. My main complaint has been that we dither along and the president does it unilaterally, I mean, that Congress isn't involved. The Constitution's very clear. When we go to war, it has to be through representatives and it has to be through Congress.
And so they wouldn't bring it up. So in December, they were passing a water bill for water aid to Africa, and I attached a declaration of war against ISIS. They weren't very happy with me. [laughter]
But I've told people that had I been president last summer as ISIS began its onslaught and began its movement — and the main reason for me to say we should be involved — I — I do look for an American interest, not just bad people, but an American interest.
Our consulate in Irbil, which is in Kurdistan — it's close, and I thought it was endangered and I thought Baghdad was increasingly in danger, and the Iraqis are sort of our erstwhile allies. I'd say erstwhile because I think they need tear-away uniforms so they can run quicker. [laughter]
Yes, ISIS is a threat. But I would also put ISIS into the context of things, and if we don't do this, we're never going to learn. Why did ISIS grow stronger and how did ISIS grow stronger?
Well, we put 600 tons worth of weapons in the Syrian civil war. You've got Assad on one side. You've got two million Christians living under Assad. And then you have the Islamic rebels.
All the weapons we gave were to the Islamic rebels. Now, we say we didn't give them to ISIS, but a lot of them wound up in the hands of ISIS. I voted against arming the Islamic rebels because I said the irony is one day, we'll be back fighting against our own weapons. And now it's true.
So we do have to think when is intervention good or bad? There's nobody good in that civil war. There's not one of the Islamic rebel groups that would recognize Israel, OK? So that's one side of the war. The other side is Assad.
But I've met a lot of Syrian Christians. And the next time you come across somebody who's either from Syria or is a Syrian Christian or related to one, you ask them, which would you pick, ISIS or Assad ? No question they'd pick Assad because he's tolerated Christians to a certain extent. And he's not a great guy. He's a tyrant. But compare that to ISIS, you know? But yes, now we do have to do something. So I — I support military action against ISIS.
Unknown Speaker: [off-mike] one last question from Alexandria Knox. Alexandria, raise your hand. You have the last question.
Unknown Speaker: Thank you so much, Senator, for taking my question. I noted — I remember your issue on the national right to work. You were going to pass the National Right to Work Act. Is that your plan as president?
Paul: Yes. I'm a big fan of right to work either at the local level... [applause]
— local level, state level or national level. I think we will get a vote on it. I've been there four years, and we haven't gotten a very many votes because a certain senator from Nevada's been in charge. But now there's a — now there's a change of leadership, and my hope is to get votes on several things, and national right to work's one of them.
Thanks, everybody. [applause]
Thanks for having me.
Rand Paul, Remarks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Summit in Nashua, New Hampshire Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/310259