U.S. Rep. Richard Burr, a Republican representing North Carolina’s 5th District, is serving his fifth term in Congress. He also is a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat John Edwards. Edwards declined an invitation to be interviewed by CJ.
CJ: It has been reported that you have considered a run for U.S. Senate for several years now. More recently news stories have said that close associates of President Bush strongly encouraged you to run for the seat now held by Sen. John Edwards. How much did the president really need to persuade you to run?
Burr: Since coming to Washington in 1995, I have tried to serve as a model of constituent service to the people of the 5th District. My experiences have given me a strong foundation on which to build in the future; however, much work remains to be done.
I feel certain that the U.S Senate is the best place for me to utilize my legislative experience while continuing to serve North Carolina. I am heartened that friends, colleagues, and supporters from North Carolina, along with the White House, have encouraged me to seek this office. These pledges of support were critical to my decision. I will keep fighting for what I feel is in the best interest of North Carolina and the nation.
CJ: A delegation from your committee, after a trip to Baghdad, reported that “large numbers of U.S. troops are likely to remain in Iraq for years.” As a representative from a state with a large constituency of soldiers in that area, does that square with what your expectations were going into the war? Do you agree with that assessment? Does it affect how you view the way the president and the administration handled the war before, during, and after major hostilities?
Burr: I think that everyone in Congress understands the importance of achieving peace and stability in post-war Iraq. While keeping our troops safe and expediting their return is certainly a major concern, history has taught us that we must not be hasty or unrealistic when approaching the challenge that is before us. Recently, multiple units of the North Carolina National Guard, many composed of my constituents, were alerted to the possibility of their deployment in Iraq. I remain dedicated to achieving a swift departure from Iraq, provided our mission there has been accomplished and a stable Iraq can be turned over to a democratic Iraqi government.
CJ: How do you, as a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, measure whether intervening in another country is crucial to our national interest, for security or otherwise? You voted against involvement in Kosovo, but supported the Iraq War. Should we get involved in Liberia?
Burr: I feel that the most important issue to consider when measuring the necessity of military action abroad is the threat, or potential threat, that the situation poses to our national security. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was clear that Saddam Hussein’s hostile regime had a passionate interest in challenging our nation’s security and had little interest in acting in accordance with the agreements made at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. As a result of continued defiance by the Iraqi regime, as well as the prolonged inaction of the United Nations, I feel that the president’s decision to abandon diplomatic efforts and employ military force was an inescapable conclusion.
As you mentioned, I voted against President Clinton’s deployment of U.S troops in Kosovo, because I felt that the mission he proposed was unclear and had not been sufficiently explained to Congress or the American people, and the Kosovo situation did not represent a direct threat to our nation. Our troops are still in the Balkans. As Liberia’s situation does not pose a direct threat to our security, I would prefer to see our troops in a support role for a multilateral force.
CJ Do you believe there needs to be a change in the structure, and the leadership, of the CIA? Where or how is it failing, and where and how is it serving its purpose?
Burr: I am a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. One task of this committee is to conduct oversight of our intelligence agencies and, consequently, it is my job to remain an objective investigator in evaluating the necessity of reform in our intelligence community. This is an ongoing process, but we are dedicated to working to improve the structure, accuracy, and efficiency of our intelligence resources.
CJ: Do you agree with Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq?
Burr: I agree with Chairman Roberts’ assessment. As a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, I stand behind the work that both intelligence committees have done in considering the evidence regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Though weapons have yet to be found, the available intelligence indicators continue to point to their presence on Iraqi soil. Although our military forces continue to scour Iraq for Saddam’s WMD, there can be no question that Saddam possessed such weapons. He went to great lengths to deceive and obstruct the search for WMD, and had 12 long years to perfect his regime’s ability to build and hide those weapons.
CJ: Do you agree with Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona that with wide Republican support for expanding by $400 billion for Medicare to cover prescription drugs, that the Republican Party has abandoned its principles by creating such an entitlement?
Burr: As vice chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a member of the Health subcommittee, I have worked closely on Medicare prescription drug legislation for more than four years.
At the beginning of this Congress, I hoped to help pass a fiscally responsible Medicare prescription drug bill that provided all Medicare beneficiaries with access to lower-priced drugs, gave low- to middle-income beneficiaries monetary assistance with their drug purchases, established tax-incentives for saving money for future drug purchases, and capped beneficiaries’ catastrophic risk. Unfortunately, the bill considered and passed by the House did not follow those principles and contained a large structural flaw. Under the House-passed bill, the federal government is required to subsidize insurance companies’ costs by 73 to 99.99 percent and the government has no bargaining power during those negotiations. Given that structural flaw, there is no guarantee that the bill will only cost $400 billion. I could not vote for the passage of a bill that is certain to cost $800 million to $1 billion in a few years and does not increase the quality of benefits my constituents receive.
CJ: Do you believe the president, and the GOP as a whole, has drifted from conservative principles because of its overall increase in government spending; its increased involvement in education; increased spending on foreign aid; etc?
Burr: In recent years the U.S. has been influenced by the drastic economic adjustment that is required to successfully wage the war on terror. This challenging and very costly duty has led to momentous changes not only in our economic climate, but also in the way our government must balance spending. As the Republican Party and myself remain steadfast in our dedication to fiscal responsibility and conservative economic principles, this new challenge has led to the necessity of increased spending for the protection of our nation and the safety of our people. Securing our homeland and working towards global stability simply cannot be done “on the cheap.” We have had several initial costs, such as creating the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and will need to continue to ensure that proper funding be given to all aspects of this battle.
It is my commitment and responsibility, however, to see that the money we spend is used correctly. As we move forward, we should continually reassess these programs and their funding.
CJ: Years ago one of the GOP’s big issues was the need for a balanced budget amendment. Now the budget deficit could possibly surpass $450 billion. Why has the concern for such an amendment fallen by the wayside?Does the GOP in general now believe in having a “strategic budget deficit?”
Burr: Balancing the budget is a central concern of both the entire Republican Party and me personally. This task, however, must be approached in a manner that is sensitive to issues such as national security, education, and Medicare. While it is necessary to work towards balancing the budget, I feel that it must be done in a manner that protects important federal programs while cutting unnecessary government expenditures. I believe that the Republican Party remains dedicated to balancing the budget; however, we must first aim at recovery, then at reform.
CJ: Should the federal government have provided money to the states to help bail them out of their budget crises? Where do you believe the bulk of the responsibility for those shortfalls falls?
Burr: We have taken steps to ensure that our economy recovers fully — and ensure that the recovery reaches into all corners of our country and state. In May, I voted in favor of an economic stimulus package that provided both tax relief and $20 billion in assistance to states suffering from budget crises. I feel that the best way to address the problems that remain is through strong economic growth, and I believe the president’s plan was a step in the right direction.
Chesser is associate editor at Carolina Journal.