ROGERS RETURNS CONTRIBUTIONS TO DRUG-COMPANY OFFICIALS

Gifts Came Weeks Before Hearing On OxyContin

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Harold "Hal" Rogers, a leading critic in Congress of how
OxyContin's manufacturer has marketed the powerful painkiller, returned
what he called improper campaign gifts from three company officials.

The $750 in contributions came six weeks before one of the officials
testified before a subcommittee about OxyContin abuse and was lectured by
Rogers, who organized the hearing.

Rogers, a Republican who represents Kentucky's 5th District, said he did
not know of the contributions at the time of the Dec. 11 hearing because
the officials didn't disclose their connections to the company when the
donations were made. Rogers' campaign discovered the link two days later
and returned the money.

"It was highly improper," Rogers said of the contributions in an interview
Friday night. Asked why he believes the donations went to him but not to
other panel members, he said, "I don't know."

But James Heins, a spokesman for OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma, said
the donations were made after the company's Washington lobbyist was invited
to an October fundraising dinner for Rogers and was asked by the
congressman for a contribution.

"We understand that Congressman Rogers does not want to accept this money,
and that is his prerogative," Heins said. "We wish him well."

Dan Dubray, Rogers' press secretary, denied that Rogers asked for a
contribution.

Rogers, a member of a House subcommittee that has direct oversight over
health-related law-enforcement issues such as OxyContin abuse and
addiction, clashed repeatedly at the Dec. 11 hearing with Dr. Paul
Goldenheim, Purdue Pharma's executive vice president.

Rogers charged that the company, based in Stamford, Conn., was too
aggressive in marketing OxyContin, a prescription painkiller sold in
time-release pills, and has failed to act to stem abuse of the drug.

In Eastern Kentucky, much of which is represented by Rogers, OxyContin has
been linked to at least 70 overdose deaths in the past two years.
Nationally, the Drug Enforcement Administration has blamed 117 deaths in 31
states during that time on OxyContin.

At the hearing, Rogers told Goldenheim, "Your company did nothing, and
people were dying!"

Goldenheim testified that combating OxyContin abuse was the company's
"highest priority" and defended Purdue Pharma's promotion efforts to make
doctors aware of the drug's benefits.

Rogers and Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., asked the General Accounting Office to
investigate Purdue Pharma's marketing. The probe is under way.

Six weeks before the hearing, on Oct. 29, Rogers' congressional campaign
received $250 from Goldenheim, according to Federal Election Commission
records. The same day, Rogers' campaign also received $250 each from
Michael Friedman, chief operating officer of Purdue Pharma, and Howard
Udell, executive vice president and general counsel for the company, the
FEC records show.

"They are certainly not large contributions, but it is curious how the
three were bundled together and came unsolicited right before" the hearing,
Dubray said.

A check by the Courier-Journal of FEC records found no other donations from
the Purdue Pharma officials to the 12 other Democratic and Republican
members of the subcommittee that conducted the hearing.

Goldenheim and Friedman are not major political givers, FEC records
indicate. Goldenheim gave a total of $1,500 in 1998 and 1999 to his
homestate senators, Connecticut Democrats Joseph Lieberman and Christopher
Dodd, and Friedman gave $2,000 to Dodd in 1997 and 1998.

Udell did not show up in the records as a donor to federal candidates,
although complete House and Senate contribution records for the most recent
six-month filing period could not be checked Friday because of computer
problems at the FEC. The six-month reports were due Thursday.

How the contributions to Rogers came about and how they got to his campaign
are a matter of dispute.

Purdue Pharma says Dan Cohen, the company's lobbyist, told Udell that
Rogers had invited the lobbyist to the fund-raising dinner "and had
requested a donation."

"Dan Cohen told Howard Udell that Hal Rogers is a good congressman who is
worthy of re-election," Heins said. "Mr. Udell accepted Mr. Cohen's
judgment regarding the congressman and asked some of his colleagues to join
with him in supporting Congressman Rogers, which they agreed to do. "The
checks were personal donations sent to Dan Cohen," Heins said. "Mr. Cohen
attended the fund-raising dinner and gave the checks to someone on
Congressman Rogers' staff."

Cohen, who said he has known Rogers for 21 years, largely backed up that
account. Although he did not recall how he was invited to the Oct. 16
dinner, of which the American Trucking Association was the host, he said
that he understood that it was for Rogers and that he brought the checks
from the Purdue Pharma officials to the event.

But Dubray said that Rogers did not ask Cohen or anyone else from Purdue
Pharma for a contribution and was not involved in handling invitations to
the dinner, and that Rogers' campaign did not receive the checks at the
dinner. They were mailed later and were recorded by the campaign on Oct.
29, he said.

"Neither Hal Rogers nor his campaign solicited contributions from Purdue
Pharma, its executives or its lobbyist," Dubray said.

When the Dec. 11 hearing started and Goldenheim testified, a Rogers aide
who was watching the proceedings on television recalled seeing a check with
that name on it, according to Rogers' office.

A review of records determined that it was the same Goldenheim and also
turned up the checks from the other Purdue Pharma officials. Rogers
directed that the donations be returned, and three $250 checks were sent to
Goldenheim, Friedman and Udell on Dec. 13, records show.

Although federal election law requires identifying the employer of campaign
donors, Dubray acknowledged that donations from individuals often are
received without that information. Campaigns are required to make
good-faith efforts to track down contributors for missing information.

Heins said the checks were not identified as being from Purdue Pharma
officials because they were "personal donations" for Rogers' campaign. "No
intent was made to conceal who the money came from," Heins said. "The names
and addresses of the executives were on the checks. It is Mr. Udell's
understanding that it is the campaign's obligation to determine the
employment of the contributor."

Heins said no other subcommittee members were given donations because "no
one else asked."

Rogers said he hasn't heard from Purdue Pharma since the contributions were
returned. "I don't suspect they'll be contributing to me any more," he said.