What Do Reps Charge Lobbyists To Parrot Their Talking Points? Does It Cost Less To Just Have Them Inserted Into The Congressional Record?

Change? Sure, these 2 crooks are gone, but their system is as strong and vibrant as ever

A week ago Ken and I were marveling about how one trained congressional chimpanzee after another got up on the House floor and made an identical 60 second speech about why he opposes healthcare reform. Word-for-word... on TV. They must have figured no one was watching C-SPAN and that when THE speech got played back in their districts, the voters would only hear their parrot-like version of it. It was a very different approach from the powerful and moving speeches by healthcare reform advocates like Donna Edwards (D-MD), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Lloyd Doggett (D-TX).

Yesterday's NY Times shed new light on the same/same speeches-- both those brazenly delivered on the floor and those simply inserted into the Congressional Record-- and sent out as part of fundraising pitches to partisan supporters back home. It turns out 22 Republicans were using a speech written for them-- either wholly or in part-- by a team of lobbyists from biotech giant Genentech. And the same Genentech team, it turns out, wrote a slightly different speech for Democrats, 20 of whom used it in their inserted remarks for the Congressional Record!

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

Members of Congress submit statements for publication in the Congressional Record all the time, often with a decorous request to “revise and extend my remarks.” 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 “author” 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, “We are trying to secure as many House R’s and D’s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.”

He told the lobbyists to “conduct 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.”

In recent years, Genentech’s 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’s Washington office, said, “There was no connection between the contributions and the statements.”

Well, of course not! The contributions from lobbyists and Big Business are always just made in the purest spirit of civicmindedness. Pascrell, who voted for the healthcare bill, has received $118,800 this year alone. Among the Republicans who used the lobbyists' wording were Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO-$71,700), Joe Wilson (R-SC- $79,150), Michael Conaway (R-TX-$15,150), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS- $26,250), and Lee Terry (R-NE-$37,681).

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: “Let 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.”

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

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

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

Time Magazine's Karen Tumulty writes that the NY Times piece quoted above reminded her of another lobbyist scandal from not so long ago, especially when a Genentech lobbyist is quoted insisting "there is nothing nefarious about any of this, and that it happens all the time." She went back to a Washington Post report from October, 2005 that looked into the relationship between then Congressman Bob Ney (R-OH) and the country's then king of GOP lobbyists, Jack Abramoff, both of whom were subsequently arrested, tried and thrown in prison:

A few years later, Ney paid unusual attention to another Abramoff client, the Florida gambling boat company SunCruz, which was headquartered more than 1,000 miles outside of Ney's congressional district. Abramoff and his business partner were trying to buy the cruise ship fleet from Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, but Boulis was demanding unwelcome additional terms.

In March 2000, Ney used the Congressional Record to assail Boulis.

"On the Ohio River we have gaming interests that run clean operations and provide quality entertainment," Ney wrote. "I don't want to see the actions of one bad apple in Florida, or anywhere else to affect the business aspect of this industry or hurt any innocent casino patron in our country."

Ney's remarks were orchestrated by Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay spokesman who had just been hired to work for Abramoff at Preston Gates & Ellis LLP. Scanlon had approached Ney through his chief of staff, Neil Volz, according to sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Volz has repeatedly declined to be interviewed.

A few months later, Boulis agreed in principle to sell SunCruz to Abramoff and Kidan for $147.5 million. The deal closed in the fall. But Abramoff and Kidan failed to make good on a $23 million payment owed to Boulis, court records show.

When Boulis was being difficult in the negotiations, Ney again made an official statement, this time heaping praise on Kidan.

"Since my previous statement, I have come to learn that SunCruz Casino now finds itself under new ownership and, more importantly, that its new owner has a renowned reputation for honesty and integrity," Ney said in the Congressional Record on Oct. 26, 2000. "The new owner, Mr. Adam Kidan, is most well known for his successful enterprise, Dial-a-Mattress, but he is also well known as a solid individual and a respected member of his community.

"While Mr. Kidan certainly has his hands full in his efforts to clean up SunCruz's reputation, his track record as a businessman and as a citizen lead me to believe that he will easily transform SunCruz from a questionable enterprise to an upstanding establishment that the gaming community can be proud of."

But Kidan's "track record" included a string of lawsuits, judgments, liens, bankruptcies and failed businesses. His Dial-a-Mattress franchise in the District was in bankruptcy. He had filed personal bankruptcy, and he had surrendered his law license in New York after being accused of fraud. One of his mentors, Anthony Moscatiello, was alleged by law enforcement to be an accountant for New York's Gambino crime family.

Ney later said he did not know about Kidan's background.

It's a shame the NY Times didn't bother releasing all 42 names of the members of Congress who used the lobbyists' speeches.


UPDATE: Marcy Wheeler Uncovers The Republican Script

Marcy's diligent work-- I got no further than rooting around for some YouTubes that were no where to be found-- has yielded up the exact texts the Republicans (plus quasi-Republican Blue Dog Heath Shuler) used. Shuler, who rooms with Jim DeMint in the neo-fascist Family house on C-Street, is Rahm Emanuel's idea of a Democrat: someone who votes for the party when it comes to the biannual organization and then goes and roosts on the other side of the aisle for 2 years. Marcy uses several examples penned by Genentech lobbyists. Here's the first:

Joe Wilson (R-SC)

I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill (H.R. 3962) and rightfully so. But in fairness, I 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 to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Jerry Moran (/R-KS)

Mr. Speaker, after reviewing H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, listening to the concerns of Kansans, and visiting Kansas hospitals to speak with doctors, nurses, patients, and administrators, I have concluded that this bill will be harmful to Kansas and I strongly oppose it. However, I 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 to patients without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Kay Granger (R-TX)

Mr. Speaker, I have criticized the majority of the provisions in H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and I will vote against it. However, I am pleased that H.R. 3962, as well as the Republican Substitute Amendment that I support, both include language relating to biosimilar products.

Lee Terry (R-NE)

Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. But in fairness, I 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 to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Ted Poe (R-TX)

I am strongly against H.R. 3962, and I will vote against it should it come to a vote on the House floor. However, I 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 to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)

Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. However, one bi-partisan area that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower-cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country that is included in both the underlying bill, which I strongly oppose, and the Republican substitute, which I intend to support, are the sections relating to the creation of a market for biosimilar products.

Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)

Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of this bill and rightfully so. However, I 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 to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Mike Conaway (R-TX)

Mr. Speaker, I have criticized many of the provisions of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and with good reason. However, I believe that the creation of a market for biosimilar products is one area of the bill that strikes the appropriate balance in providing lower cost options to consumers without destroying a healthy and functioning industry in this country.

Darrell Issa (R-CA)

Despite this bill’s many faults, I support the bill’s language establishing a market for biosimilars which balances the desire to provide cheaper biologics with the need to continue incentivizing investment in research and development.

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

These are some of the many concerns I have with H.R. 3962, which is why I instead support the Republican health care alternative. The alternative excludes the unnecessary and burdensome excise tax in H.R. 3962, and also includes a responsible pathway for follow-on biologics by including provisions from the Pathways for Biosimilars Act, which I am a proud cosponsor of.
[snip]
But we need solutions that strike a balance in reducing health care costs, strengthening health care access, and allowing health innovators, like our biotech industry, to continue to research and improve therapies for patients.

Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)

Mr. Speaker, as you know I am opposed to the bill we are considering today for many reasons that I have articulated previously. I am pleased, however, that the bill strikes the appropriate balance on the issue of follow on biologics. This bipartisan compromise language will provide lower cost options to consumers and my constituents  without destroying a healthy and functioning bio-tech industry in this country.