NEW DSCC AD: Richard Burr’s 20 Years in Washington Have Been Great For Him, Not So Great for North Carolina

V/O: It’s all connected

GFX: It’s all connected

V/O: Richard Burr wrote a plan to privatize Medicare, making you pay more

GFX: Richard Burr

Wrote Plan To Privatize Medicare

Making You Pay More

-AP, 2/16/12; Winston-Salem Journal, 2/18/12

BURR INTRODUCED A PLAN TO PRIVATIZE MEDICARE, WHICH WAS DERIDED AS THE RYAN PLAN “ON STEROIDS”

2012: Associated Press: Burr Unveiled His Own Medicare Privatization Plan, Which Would “Start The Transition To A System Dominated By Private Insurance Plans” Faster Than The Ryan Plan. “Two Republican senators unveiled a Medicare overhaul Thursday that features an accelerated transition to private health insurance for many seniors, a gradual increase in the eligibility age, and higher premiums for middle-class and upper-income retirees. […] Like Ryan, Coburn and Burr would gradually raise the eligibility age to 67. But their plan also differs in several important ways. It would start the transition to a system dominated by private insurance plans in 2016 instead of waiting a decade, as Ryan has proposed. Private plans would compete with a government-sponsored program, a retooled version of today’s Medicare. Seniors would get a fixed amount from the government which they could apply toward a private plan or the government plan modeled on Medicare. Benefits would not be spelled out, but all plans would have to meet a test of basic insurance value.” [Associated Press, 2/16/12]

• Burr Proposed Privatizing Medicare Within 4 Years. “Republican U.S. Sens. Richard Burr of Winston-Salem and Tom Coburn on Thursday unveiled their plan for changing Medicare, the government-run health-care program for seniors. The plan would offer seniors, starting in 2016, the choice to stick with the government-run fee-for-service program, or choose health insurance policies offered by private companies that would bid for the right to participate in the Medicare program. According to Burr, the Seniors’ Choice Act also would: Provide a maximum out-of-pocket protection so that a senior would not have to pay more than $7,500 per year in medical expenses. Gradually raise the age of eligibility for participating in Medicare by two months for each year until age 67, starting with people born in 1949. Gradually increase the premiums on Medicare by an average of 3 percent each year beginning in 2013 so that a 9 percent increase is accomplished by 2016.” [Winston-Salem Journal, 2/18/12]

• Annuity News: Burr’s Proposal For Medicare Included An “Increased Shift Toward More Privatization Of The Medicare Industry.” “Under the legislative proposal put forward by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., seniors would be limited in how they use private supplemental Medicare insurance and maximum out-of-pocket medical expenses under Medicare Parts A and B would also be limited. The proposal would also increase out-of-pocket requirements for wealthy seniors. But perhaps the biggest change is a provision that would give seniors the right to choose the Medicare plan that best meets their needs. That means that in 2016, there would be an increased shift toward more privatization of the Medicare industry. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service plans and private plans would ‘be forced to compete head-to-head,’ Coburn said in a statement.” [Annuity News, 2/21/12]

• NCPSSM: Burr’s Medicare Privatization Plan “Nothing More Than The GOP/Ryan Plan On Steroids.” “The Coburn/Burr legislation proposed today would: provide seniors a voucher for their health care that could shift a growing share of Medicare costs to beneficiaries without reducing overall costs in the program, undermine traditional Medicare, leave millions of seniors without health coverage in retirement, and raise premiums for middle-class retirees. The Coburn/Burr proposal forces these changes even earlier than the Ryan plan. ‘This latest Medicare privatization scheme is nothing more than the GOP/Ryan plan on steroids. Not only does it promise savings that most private insurers have never achieved in providing coverage to seniors, it also delays healthcare coverage to age 67, and raises premiums for millions of American retirees. Budget hawks keep promising that private market competition will drive down costs yet history proves just the opposite. Private insurers offering Medicare Advantage plans have raked in billions of dollars in overpayments in the past decade and seniors, whether they participated in MA or not, paid for those subsidies with higher premiums.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Press Release, 2/16/12]

• NCPSSM: Burr’s Plan “Doubled Down On Congressman Ryan’s Voucher Plan Offering What Appears To Be The Same Failed Privatization Approach To Medicare Reform.” “Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (RNC) have doubled down on Congressman Ryan’s voucher plan offering what appears to be the same failed privatization approach to Medicare reform that has been rejected by the majority of Americans. The Coburn/Burr legislation proposed today would: provide seniors a voucher for their health care that could shift a growing share of Medicare costs to beneficiaries without reducing overall costs in the program, undermine traditional Medicare, leave millions of seniors without health coverage in retirement, and raise premiums for middle-class retirees. The Coburn/Burr proposal forces these changes even earlier than the Ryan plan.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Press Release, 2/16/12]

• PolitiFact: “Mostly True” That Proposal To Voucherize Medicare, By Prompting A Shift Toward The Private Sector – Regardless Of Degree, Would “Privatize Medicare.” “It’s true that under the Ryan proposal, the government will retain important duties in running Medicare. But ‘privatization’ does not have to mean that the government has nothing further to do with the enterprise. Under longstanding definitions, privatization could take place without the government giving up its right to regulate a privately provided service, such as an electric utility. That said, we think it’s fair to note that Medicare already provides some types of coverage through private insurance now, so the shift toward the private sector prompted by the Ryan plan would be more a question of degree than kind. On balance, we conclude that the idea that the Paul Ryan budget proposal would ‘privatize Medicare’ is Mostly True.” [PolitiFact, 5/25/11]

BURR MEDICARE PRIVATIZATION PLAN WOULD INCREASE PREMIUMS BY 9 PERCENT

Winston Salem Journal: Burr Medicare Privatization Plan Contained A “9 Percent Increase” In Medicare Premiums. “Republican U.S. Sens. Richard Burr of Winston-Salem and Tom Coburn on Thursday unveiled their plan for changing Medicare, the government-run health-care program for seniors. The plan would offer seniors, starting in 2016, the choice to stick with the government-run fee for-service program, or choose health insurance policies offered by private companies that would bid for the right to participate in the Medicare program. According to Burr, the Seniors’ Choice Act also would: Provide a maximum out-of-pocket protection so that a senior would not have to pay more than $7,500 per year in medical expenses. Gradually raise the age of eligibility for participating in Medicare by two months for each year until age 67, starting with people born in 1949. Gradually increase the premiums on Medicare by an average of 3 percent each year beginning in 2013 so that a 9 percent increase is accomplished by 2016.” [Winston Salem Journal, 2/18/12]

Kaiser Family Foundation: Burr Medicare Privatization Plan Contained A “9 Percent Increase” In Medicare Premiums. “Burr-Coburn ‘Seniors’ Choice Act’ February 16, 2012 Part B premiums would be increased by 3 percent of Part A and B program costs each year, beginning in 2013, to achieve a 9 percent increase prior to implementation of premium support in 2016. Beneficiaries would pay the difference between the defined federal contribution and the bid for the plan in which they chose to enroll. Unclear how the Part B and Part D formulas would be calculated or applied beginning in 2016.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 7/26/12]

Burr Medicare Plan Would Raise Standard Medicare Part B Premiums By 9 Percent, Up To Roughly $240 Annually. “Burr–Coburn would raise the standard Medicare Part B premiums from 25 percent to 34 percent of total premium costs over three years. The Senators say that the impact would be on the order of roughly $15 to $20 per month.” [Heritage Foundation, 4/4/12]

V/O: And Richard Burr got one point one million dollars from the insurance industry

GFX: Richard Burr

Campaigns Got $1.1 Million

From The Insurance Industry

-Center for Responsive Politics

BURR HAS TAKEN OVER $1.1 MILLION FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY DURING HIS CAREER

Burr Has Received $1.1 Million From Insurance Interests. Over the course of his political career Burr has received a total of $1,129,864 from insurance industry interests. [Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 6/1/16]

V/O: Richard Burr was one of just three Senators to vote against banning insider trading by Congress

GFX: Richard Burr

Voted Against Banning Insider Trading By Congress

-Vote 14, 2/2/12

BURR WAS ONE OF ONLY THREE SENATORS TO VOTE AGAINST THE STOCK ACT, WHICH BANNED INSIDER TRADING FOR LAWMAKERS

Burr Voted Against The STOCK Act, Which Prohibited Insider Trading By Members Of Congress And Required Disclosure Of Stock Trades Within 30 Days Of Transaction. In 2012, Burr voted against: “Passage of the bill that would clarify that members of Congress and their aides are covered by current Securities and Exchange Commission regulations that bar the use of non-public information for trading stocks and bonds. The bill would state that existing House and Senate ethics rules bar lawmakers from voting on legislation on which they have a conflict of interest. It would require lawmakers and congressional aides who already file annual financial disclosure statements to report stock and bond transactions within 30 days of the transaction. The information would be posted on a publicly-available website. The bill would require lawmakers to disclose more financial data on their home mortgages and would prohibit the payment of bonuses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives while the two mortgage giants are under government conservatorship.” The bill passed by a vote of 96-3. [CQ, 2/2/12; S.2038, Vote 14, 2/2/12]

• Politico: Senate “Easily Passed” The STOCK Act That “Would Ban Insider Trading For Lawmakers,” Bill “Sail[ed] Through The Senate On A 96-3 Vote.” “The Senate broke through its usual gridlock on Thursday and easily passed a politically popular bill that would ban insider trading for lawmakers and their staffs. After days of bickering over amendments, the STOCK Act sailed through the Senate on a 96-3 vote and now heads to the House, where Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has pledged to bring the bill to the floor next week. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) were the only no votes.” [Politico, 2/2/12]

• Headline: “Insider Trading Bill Heads To House” [Politico, 2/2/12]

• 60 Minutes: “It Was Legal For Members Of Congress To Trade Stock Based On Non-Public Information Gathered During The Course Of Their Duties.” “Congressmen and senators are expending much of their time and energy right now raising the millions of dollars in campaign funds they’ll need just to hold onto a job that pays $174,000 a year. Few of them are doing it for the salary, and all of them will say they’re doing it to serve the public. But there are other benefits — power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country don’t always apply to them. When we first broadcast this story in November it was legal for members of Congress to trade stock based on non-public information gathered during the course of their duties — this story would change that.” [CBS News, 6/17/12]

• The STOCK Act Prohibited The Use Of Nonpublic Information Accessed In Congress For Personal Profit. “The legislation was a direct result of a CBS News 60 minutes investigation in November of 2011 that exposed how members of Congress and staff legally traded stocks based on nonpublic information that they had exclusive access to. The STOCK Act prohibits the use of that information for private profit. It also amended the Commodity Exchange Act, which dictates reporting of financial transactions on a more frequent and immediate basis – now within forty-five days of a trade.” [CBS News, 9/2/16]

Burr Was One Of Only Three Senators To Oppose The STOCK Act. “U.S. Sen. Richard Burr was one of only three senators who opposed a new bill that explicitly prevents members of Congress and their staffs from using nonpublic information for insider trading.  The Winston-Salem Republican characterized the time spent debating the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act as ‘ludicrous’ when existing laws address insider trading. The laws apply to all Americans, including members of Congress, he said.” [McClatchy, 2/7/12]

V/O: And Richard Burr voted to raise his own pay … seven times

GFX: Richard Burr

Voted To Raise His Own Pay

7 Times

Vote 339, 12/18/15; Vote 289, 12/21/10; Vote 96, 3/10/09; Vote 322, 7/18/02; Vote 419, 7/20/00; Vote 538, 10/20/98; Vote 455, 9/28/96

BURR VOTED TO RAISE HIS CONGRESSIONAL SALARY SEVEN TIMES

Dec. 2015: Burr Voted Against An Omnibus Appropriations And Tax Extenders Bill For FY 2016. In December 2015, Burr voted against: “McConnell, R-Ky., motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill that would provide $1.15 trillion in discretionary appropriations in fiscal 2016 for federal departments and agencies covered by the 12 unfinished fiscal 2016 spending bills. Included in that total is: $21.8 billion for Agriculture; $55.7 billion for Commerce-Justice-Science; $572.7 billion for Defense, including $58.6 billion for overseas contingency operations associated with the war in Afghanistan and other counterterrorism operations such as the fight against the Islamic State; $37. 2 billion for Energy-Water; $23.2 billion for Financial Services; $41 billion for Homeland Security in addition to $160 million for overseas contingency operations and $6.7 billion in disaster relief funding; $32.2 billion for Interior-Environment; $162.1 billion for Labor-HHS-Education; $4.4 billion for the Legislative Branch; $79.9 billion for Military Construction-VA; $52.8 billion for State-Foreign Operations, including $14.9 billion in overseas contingency operations; and $57.6 billion for Transportation-HUD. The measure would end the U.S. ban on crude oil exports and would reauthorize health care and victim compensation programs for 9/11 first-responders. The measure would also make permanent more than a dozen expired or expiring tax provisions, including a modified research and development business tax credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the expansions to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The measure would also extend various other tax provisions for either two or five years, and delay for two years the 2.3 percent medical device tax and the so-called “Cadillac tax” under the 2010 health care law.” The motion passed 65-33. [CQ, 12/18/15; H.R. 2029, Vote 339, 12/18/15]

• Bill Included A Provision Blocking A Cost Living Adjustment For Congressional Pay For FY 2016. “SEC. 9. ADJUSTMENTS TO COMPENSATION. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no adjustment shall be made under section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 4501) (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of Congress) during fiscal year 2016.” [H.R. 2029, 12/18/15]

• CRS: Law “Denied” Congress A Cost Of Living Adjustment. “Since January 2009, the salary for Members of Congress has been $174,000. Subsequent adjustments were denied by P.L. 111-8 (enacted March 11, 2009), P.L. 111-165 (May 14, 2010), P.L. 111-322 (December 22, 2010), P.L. 112-175 (September 28, 2012), P.L. 112-240 (January 2, 2013), P.L. 113-46 (October 17, 2013), P.L. 113-235 (December 16, 2014), and P.L. 114-113 (December 18, 2015).” [Congressional Research Service, 6/21/16]

Dec. 2010: Burr Voted Against A FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Bill. In December 2010, Burr voted against: “Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further Reid substitute amendment no. 4885 that would continue most appropriations at fiscal 2010-enacted levels through March 4, 2011. The measure would provide an overall annualized spending rate that is $1.16 billion more than fiscal 2010 levels. It would provide additional funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Pell grants. It also would allow the awarding of a Navy contract for shipbuilding of Littoral Combat Ships to multiple suppliers.” The motion passed 79-16. [CQ, 12/21/10; H.R. 3082, Vote 289, 12/21/10]

• Factcheck.Org: The Bill Included A Provision Blocking A Pay Increase For Congress Until 2012. “Under current law, members of Congress are subject to receive an annual cost-of-living adjustment to their salaries. The amount of the increase is determined by a formula based on private sector wages. And the adjustment happens automatically unless members pass legislation to cancel the increase. […] In December 2010, McConnell voted for H.R. 3082, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, which, among other things, blocked any pay raise from occurring before Dec. 31, 2012.” [Factcheck.org, 6/21/13]

March 2009: Burr Voted Against A Motion To Invoke Cloture On The Bill That Would Provide $410 Billion In Discretionary Spending In Fiscal 2009 And Block The Automatic Cost-Of-Living Adjustment For Members Of Congress In 2010. In March 2009, Burr voted against: “Motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the bill that would provide $410 billion in discretionary spending in fiscal 2009 for federal departments and agencies covered by nine unfinished fiscal 2009 spending bills. Those bills are: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; Energy-Water; Financial Services; Interior-Environment; Labor-HHS-Education; Legislative Branch; State-Foreign Operations; and Transportation-HUD. It would also provide $100 million for the U.S. Secret Service and block the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for members of Congress in 2010.” The motion passed, 62-35. [CQ, 3/10/09; H.R. 1105, Vote 96, 3/10/09]

• CRS: Vote For Omnibus Appropriations Act Was A Vote To Block A Pay Increase. “This adjustment was denied by Congress through a provision included in the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which was enacted on March 11, 2009. Section 103 of Division J of the act states, ‘Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect.’” [Congressional Research Service, 6/21/16]

Jul. 2002: Burr Voted To Advance A Bill That Would Allocate $35.1 Billion In FY2003 Treasury-Postal Appropriations. In July 2002, Burr voted for a: “Linder, R-Ga., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the resolution (H Res 488) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would allocate $35.1 billion in fiscal 2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations.” A vote for the motion ordering the previous question is a vote to end debate without allowing alternative proposals, while a vote against ordering the previous question is a vote to allow the minority party to offer an alternative proposal. For this vote: “H. Res. 488 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5120, the fiscal year 2003 Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill. It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.” The motion was agreed to by a 258-156 vote. [CQ, 7/18/02; H.Res. 488, Vote 322, 7/18/02; Congressional Record, 7/18/02]

• House Members Voted To Raise Their Pay By $5,000 Per Year. “Lawmakers appear ready to give themselves another pay raise, their fourth in four years. If the raise, about $5,000 a year, goes into effect, rank-and-file members of Congress would receive $155,000, an increase of more than $20,000 over the past decade. Under a 1989 law, congressional pay raises, determined by a complicated formula that includes a measure of private industry employment costs, go into effect automatically unless lawmakers vote to block it. House lawmakers cleared the way Thursday for the salary hike.” [Associated Press, 7/19/02]

• CRS: Vote For The Motion Prevented An Amendment Prohibiting A Pay Increase From Being Permitted. “The House agreed (258-156, vote #322) to order the previous question on a rule (H.Res. 488) providing for consideration of H.R. 5120, the FY2003 Treasury Appropriations bill. By ordering the previous question, the House voted to prevent an amendment to the rule from being offered, and to bring the rule to an immediate vote. An amendment to the rule could have waived points of order so as to permit an amendment to the bill prohibiting a pay increase.” [Congressional Research Service, 6/21/16]

Jul. 2000: Burr Voted To Advance A Bill That Would Appropriate $29.1 Billion In FY2001 For The Treasury Department, Postal Service, And Related Agencies. In July 2000, Burr voted for a: “Linder, R-Ga., motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule (H Res 559) to provide for House floor consideration of the bill to appropriate $29.1 billion in fiscal 2001 for the Treasury Department, U.S. Postal Service and related agencies.” A vote for the motion ordering the previous question is a vote to end debate without allowing alternative proposals, while a vote against ordering the previous question is a vote to allow the minority party to offer an alternative proposal. For this vote: “House Resolution 560 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4871, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations.  The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bills, with regard to the bill.” The motion was agreed to by a 250-173 vote. [CQ, 7/20/00; H.Res. 560, Vote 419, 7/20/00; Congressional Record, 7/20/00]

• Associated Press: “Members Of Congress Seem On The Road To Giving Themselves Their Third Cost-Of-Living Pay Raise In Four Years, A $3,800 Boost[.]” “Members of Congress seem on the road to giving themselves their third cost-of-living pay raise in four years, a $3,800 boost made less politically risky in this era of huge projected budget surpluses. On a 250-173 procedural vote, House opponents of the boost lost their opportunity to derail the increase Thursday. Under a law they passed in 1989, members of Congress automatically get a raise unless they vote to block it.” [Associated Press, 7/21/00]

• CRS: A Vote For The Previous Question Prohibited An Amendment To Eliminate A Pay Raise From Being Considered. “The House agreed (250-173, vote #419) to order the previous question on a rule (H.Res. 560) providing for consideration of H.R. 4871, the FY2001 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill. H.Res. 560 was an open rule that allowed any germane amendment; an amendment to prohibit the pay adjustment, however, would not have been germane. By agreeing to order the previous question, Members voted not to consider an amendment to permit a pay raise prohibition amendment to be offered.” [Congressional Research Service, 6/21/16]

Oct. 1998: Burr Voted Against An Omnibus Appropriations Bill. . In October 1998, Burr voted against: “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to provide almost $500 billion in new budget authority for those Cabinet departments and federal agencies whose fiscal 1999 appropriations bills were never enacted. The measure incorporates eight previously separate appropriations bills: Labor-HHS-Education, Interior, Treasury-Postal, Foreign Operations, Commerce-Justice-State, District of Columbia, Agriculture and Transportation. In addition, the bill provides $20.8 billion in “emergency” supplemental spending, including $6.8 billion for military spending ($1.9 billion of it for Bosnia operations), $5.9 billion for relief to farmers, $2.4 billion for anti-terrorism programs, $3.35 billion to address Year 2000 computer problems and $1.55 billion for disaster relief from Hurricane Georges. The measure also contains language to extend expiring tax provisions (at a cost of $9.7 billion over nine years), increase the number of H-1B visas for high-tech foreign workers, impose a three-year moratorium on new taxes on Internet access, implement the Chemical Weapons Convention and extend for six months Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, which is designed to help struggling farmers.” The report was adopted 333-95. [CQ, 10/20/98; H.R. 4328, Vote 538, 10/20/98]

• CRS: A Vote Against The Conference Report Was A Vote Against A Pay Prohibition. “The House agreed (333-95, vote #538) to the conference report accompanying H.R. 4328, the FY1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, with the pay prohibition language.” [Congressional Research Service, 6/21/16]

Sept. 1996: Burr Voted Against An Omnibus Appropriations Bill. In September 1996, Burr voted against: “Adoption of the conference report on the bill to appropriate more than $600 billion in new budget authority, including $382.3 billion in discretionary spending, for those Cabinet departments and federal agencies whose fiscal 1997 appropriations bills were never enacted. The measure incorporates all or part of six previously separate bills: Defense; Labor-HHS-Education, Interior, Treasury-Postal, Foreign Operations, and Commerce-Justice-State. Included in the bill is $1.1 billion to combat terrorism, $650 million disaster relief for fire-fighters in Western states, $400 million to assist Hurricane Fran victims, and $8.8 billion to combat illicit drug use. The bill includes $6.5 billion in increased spending requested by President Clinton, to be offset by $2.9 billion in broadcast spectrum sales, $3.1 billion in outlays from the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, and a $1 billion reduction from the defense budget. The measure also includes a modified version of the conference report to restrict illegal immigration. The bill was originally the Fiscal 1997 Defense Appropriations bill.” The report was adopted 370-37. [CQ, 9/28/96; H.R. 3610, Vote 455, 9/28/96]

• CRS: A Vote Against The Conference Report Was A Vote Against A Pay Freeze. “Members did not receive the annual pay adjustment of 2.3% scheduled for January 1, 1997, as a consequence of the votes taken in 1996. The salary of Members remained $133,600. […] The House agreed (370-37, vote #455) to the conference report on H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Continuing Appropriations bill, FY1997, which contained a pay freeze provision.” [Congressional Research Service, 6/21/16]

V/O: He increased his wealth over five hundred percent

GFX: Richard Burr

Increased His Wealth Over 500%

-Richard Burr Financial Disclosures, Filed 5/16/95, 5/15/15

BURR’S NET WORTH HAS INCREASED BY OVER 500 PERCENT

From 1994 To 2014, Burr’s Average Net Worth Increased By Over 500%. According to Burr’s 1994 and 2014 personal financial disclosures, Burr’s net worth increased by over 500%. Burr had an average net worth of $189,507 in 1994 and an average net worth of $2,636,270 in 2014.” [Richard Burr Personal Financial Disclosure Reports – 1994 & 2014; Filed 5/16/95, 5/15/15]

V/O: Richard Burr.  Twenty years in Washington … serving himself

GFX: Richard Burr

20 Years In Washington

Serving Himself

BURR HAS SERVED IN CONGRESS FOR 21 YEARS

Burr Has Served In Congress Since 1995, 21 Years Total. “Burr said that after serving in Congress since 1995 – he spent 10 years in the U.S. House before running for Senate – it will be time for a new generation of leaders to take over. Asked why he’s announcing his plans in the midst of a heated re-election campaign, Burr cited his wife, Brooke.” [Charlotte Observer, 7/20/16]

V/O: DSCC is responsible for the content of this advertising.

GFX: PAID FOR BY DSCC, WWW.DSCC.ORG, AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR

CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE.

DSCC IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS

ADVERTISING.