[Ip-health] NYT: In House, Many Spoke W/ One Voice: Roche lobbyists'

[Sarah Rimmington]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=3D1
November 15, 2009
In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists=92
By ROBERT PEAR
Page A1

WASHINGTON =97 In the official record of the historic House debate on
overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with
similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or
in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the
world=92s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists
drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms,
were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the
Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42
House members picked up some of its talking points =97 22 Republicans and
20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New
Jersey, said: =93I regret that the language was the same. I did not know
it was.=94 He said he got his statement from his staff and =93did not know
where they got the information from.=94

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the
Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to
=93revise and extend my remarks.=94 It is unusual for so many revisions and
extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find
clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists.

The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the
statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees to
one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon,
Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the =93author=94 of the documents.
The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law firm,
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

In an e-mail message to fellow lobbyists on Nov. 5, two days before the
House vote, Todd M. Weiss, senior managing director of Sonnenschein,
said, =93We are trying to secure as many House R=92s and D=92s to offer
this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.=94

He told the lobbyists to =93conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts
on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements
(or an edited version) for the record.=94

In recent years, Genentech=92s political action committee and lobbyists
for Roche and Genentech have made campaign contributions to many House
members, including some who filed statements in the Congressional
Record. And company employees have been among the hosts at fund-raisers
for some of those lawmakers. But Evan L. Morris, head of Genentech=92s
Washington office, said, =93There was no connection between the
contributions and the statements.=94

Mr. Morris said Republicans and Democrats, concerned about the
unemployment rate, were receptive to the company=92s arguments about the
need to keep research jobs in the United States.

The statements were not intended to change the bill, which was not open
for much amendment during the debate. They were meant to show bipartisan
support for certain provisions, even though the vote on passage
generally followed party lines.

Democrats emphasized the bill=92s potential to create jobs in health care,
health information technology and clinical research on new drugs.

Republicans opposed the bill, but praised a provision that would give
the Food and Drug Administration the authority to approve generic
versions of expensive biotechnology drugs, along the lines favored by
brand-name companies like Genentech.

Lawmakers from both parties said it was important to conduct research on
such =93biosimilar=94 products in the United States. Several took a swipe a=
t
aggressive Indian competitors.

Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech
said: =93This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it.=
=94

In separate statements using language suggested by the lobbyists,
Representatives Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri and Joe Wilson of South
Carolina, both Republicans, said: =93One of the reasons I have long
supported the U.S. biotechnology industry is that it is a homegrown
success story that has been an engine of job creation in this country.
Unfortunately, many of the largest companies that would seek to enter
the biosimilar market have made their money by outsourcing their
research to foreign countries like India.=94

In remarks on the House floor, Representative Phil Hare, Democrat of
Illinois, recalled that his family had faced eviction when his father
was sick and could not make payments on their home. He said the House
bill would save others from such hardship.

In a written addendum in the Congressional Record, Mr. Hare said the
bill would also create high-paying jobs. Timothy Schlittner, a spokesman
for Mr. Hare, said: =93That part of his statement was drafted for us by
Roche pharmaceutical company. It is something he agrees with.=94

The boilerplate in the Congressional Record included some conversational
touches, as if actually delivered on the House floor.

In the standard Democratic statement, Representative Robert A. Brady of
Pennsylvania said: =93Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the
other side of the aisle. This bill will create high-paying, high-quality
jobs in health care delivery, technology and research in the United
States.=94

Mr. Brady=92s chief of staff, Stanley V. White, said he had received the
draft statement from a lobbyist for Genentech=92s parent company, Roche.

=93We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to
enter a statement in the Congressional Record,=94 Mr. White said. =93I aske=
d
him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There=92s not much reason to
reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.=94

Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D.
Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, =93I see this bill as an exciting
opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this
country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.=94

Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same
words, but said the bill would improve the lives of =93ALL Americans.=94

Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would =93create new opportunities
and markets for our brightest technology minds.=94 Mr. Pascrell said the
bill would =93create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds
in technology.=94

In nearly identical words, three Republicans =97 Representatives K.
Michael Conaway of Texas, Lynn Jenkins of Kansas and Lee Terry of
Nebraska =97 said they had criticized many provisions of the bill, and
=93rightfully so.=94

But, each said, =93I do believe the sections relating to the creation of a
market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the
appropriate balance in providing lower cost options.=94

--
Sarah Rimmington
Attorney
Essential Action, Access to Medicines Project
Washington, DC
Tel: +1 (202) 387-8030
Cell: +1 (202) 422-2687
www.essentialaction.org/access/

Follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/sarahrimmington