you don't send me a contract and send the same contract to the manufacturer. They laugh at you and say, we are not going to give you the same price when we are bidding on the same contract, which I don't blame them. I wouldn't do it either. You are virtually doing something that is totally counterproductive. When you think, for example, there is a Procurement Fair coming up on April 2 here. I really believe that, other than information on the amount of paperwork that would be involved in filling out more Federal forms, the bottom line is that probably nobody will get a Federal contract. Other than to fill out some more forms and I am not going to do that. Mr. CONYERS. I take exception to that statement and I will tell you why. We are bringing in, first of all, prime contractors. Second, we are bringing in Federal procurement officers from the agencies specifically. We are providing desks and pencils and papers, so that they can contract and subcontract right on the spot, depending on whether you sell paper clips and they need paper clips. The idea of the conference is to consummate the transaction, no advice, no lectures, no Federal rhetoric, no questioning your ability to deliver but taking care of the business right there. Mr. SEWELL. That's a different approach than similar ones I have gone to in the past. Most of them have been a lot of rhetoric and a lot of papers. Mr. CONYERS. Well, I must suggest these are congressionally sponsored conferences of which the Congress has only 35 each year, and this has been a long awaited one for the Detroit area. Well, enough plugging for the conference. Thank you very much. We now turn to Dr. Hughes, Dr. Richard Hughes, and we welcome you before the subcommittee. STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD HUGHES Dr. HUGHES. Thank you, Honorable Congressmen. What I am about to say to you today I feel verges on one of the saddest stories, one of the saddest stories that you could hear, and a kind of a cruel hoax that the Federal Government pulls off on the people who support it. The problem is that, as has been described, there are great numbers of catch-22's that are built into the 8(a) law and Public Law 95-507, purposely I believe. In any case, the first problem that we should address today is the problem with the inefficiencies and the like, the plain lack of ability to perform by the district office of the Small Business Administration in Detroit. And this problem is amplified by the fact that, when I fly to Washington to talk to the U.S. Small Business Administration, because these people in Detroit have no idea what to do, they refuse to talk to me telling me that all autonomous decisions are made in this regional district pilot program in Detroit. Now if they cannot perform at the level-Hughes Research and Development is a large volume applied cancer research facility in Kalamazoo, Mich. There is nobody in the Detroit Small Business Administration that has any idea how to go about getting contracts from the National Cancer Institute, the national toxicology program, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environ mental Health Sciences, or any of the other agencies which do applied cancer research work. The U.S. Small Business in Detroit has the audacity to tell you that, unless you can prove that the market exists, one, either by getting the first contract-because we don't know how to go about doing it, we don't even know the people-or by getting letters written from all of these agencies telling us that there is cancer research done by the Federal Government, one of the mandates of Congress. You cannot get a letter from any director of any agency in Washington telling you that you can get a contract because it directly conflicts with the Department of Commerce law which supports the Commerce Business Daily. So these people, if they have to break a law, they break Public Law 95-507 and they break the 8(a) provisions. Now there is a worse problem. I have entered into a somewhat loose agreement with a series of companies to try to build a consortium to get the same contract that the prime is getting. We have three companies that qualify. I have not been certified by 8(a) yet, because I was told, unless I could get the letters from the directors of the agencies telling them that the Federal Government does cancer research, then I can't get certified. Three and a half years ago I was told that. That's ridiculous. I'm not certified. Now the problem is, and people haven't said it here, but there is a deceit, a deceit, an evil deceit that is built into this law and that is what I happen to know as a professor at Purdue University, at Washington State University, and in private industry. Somebody wrote the 8(a) law telling me that I could go, if I qualified, to the Small Business Administration and get a loan for $300,000, build the kind of facility that I am already building, for universities and drug companies, and then I can get contracts set aside for that facility. Mr. Kennedy-employee at SBA Detroit-didn't know where to start. Now once he determined that he was over his head, he exercised a right he has, that is cruel, and that is "you go do the marketing, you go find the contracts and then we will set them aside." Here is the problem. If a contract is available on the Commerce Business Daily and it's advertised, you cannot set it aside on the 8(a) program, No. 1. If the contract is not developed yet and it's not in the Commerce Business Daily, the agencies do not have any legal right to tell you what they are getting ready to do. So that is a catch-22. We have to have from the program people, we have to have intentions-what are your intentions and what are you going to do for the rest of this year from day 1 in the year to day 365 of this year, because once they make the decision and place the contract in the Commerce Business Daily, it cannot be set aside. They tell their buddies what they are doing. Now I have some real serious problems and one of the two letters I would like to place in the record is one I wrote to the director of the national toxicology program. This is a prime example of the problem. I wrote to Dr. David T. Rall, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and director of the national toxicology program. [Material referred to follows:] THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU AS DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIROMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES AND DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM OF OUR INTENTS. AS YOU KNOW, HUGHES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CHUGHES R&D) A MINORITY HIGH VOLUME, HIGH QUALITY SUBCONTRACT PATHOLOGY AND TISSUE PROCESSING LABORATORY HAS AT LEAST A DOZEN BLUE CHIP CLIENTS FROM PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND HAS BEEN INSPECTED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE PROCEDURES BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, THE U.S. ARMY AND NUMEROUS PRIVATE COMPANIES AND INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES WITH GOOD TO OUTSTANDING RESULTS. IN SPITE OF OUR OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE, WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO OBTAIN SUBCONTRACTS FROM PRIME CONTRACTOR KNOWN TO BE SUBCONTRACTING PATHOLOGY AND TISSUE PROCESSING FROM CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER YOUR PROGRAM. AS A RESULT OF THIS NEGLECT WE ARE IN JEOPARDY OF LOSING CLOSE TO THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS IN INVESTMENTS AND ARE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL SUBCONTRACT AND TO SUPPLY YOU WITH THE OUTSTANDING QUALITY YOU SO OFTEN QUOTE IS NEEDED FOR YOUR PROGRAM. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS PROBLEM HAPPENS TO BE AT OUR BACK DOOR. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, (IRDC) INC. MATTAWAN, MI A FEDERALLY SUPPORTED PRIVATE BUSINESS LOCATED FIVE TO TEN MINUTES FROM HUGHES R&D HAS RECEIVED OVER $10,000,000.00 IN FEDERAL CONTRACTS. AND HAS FAILED TO SUBCONTRACT ONE STUDY FROM THE BIO ASSAY PROGRAM TO HUGHES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.; MANY FROM YOUR PROGRAM. SINCE INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IS KNOWN TO HAVE SUBCONTRACTED PATHOLOGY RELATED WORK FROM YOUR PROGRAM AND MEETS CRITERIA WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE ITS CLASSIFICATION AS A SMALL BUSINESS, ITS MANDATES HAVE ALREADY VIOLATED PUBLIC LAW 95507. IN LIGHT OF THIS CIVIL PROBLEM, WE HAVE HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION WITH THE HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN PARREN MITCHELL, THE HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN RONALD DELLUM AND THE HONORABLE CONGRESSMAV MERV DYMALLY TO INSTITUTE FEDERAL ORIENTED LEGAL ACTION AGAINST INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO POSSIBLY HALT PUBLIC FUNDING FROM YOUR PROGRAM TO THAT FACILITY. IN A LARGER SINCE THIS PROBLEM EXTENDS TO PRIME CONTRACTING INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES OTHER THAN INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND MAY AFFECT THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES, THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE AND THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH AS A WHOLE. WE FEEL THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY YOU COULD CORRECT THIS CIVI. PROBLEM IMMEDIATELY AND AVERT ANY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. WE AWAIT ANXIOUSLY FOR YOUR REPLY AND YOUR CONSIDERATION IS APPRECIATED. WARM PERSONAL REGARDS, Richard Hughes RICHARD HUGHES, D.V.M., PH.D. PRESIDENT OF HUGHES RESEARCH AND RH/DB CC: THE HONORABLE PARREN MITCHELL THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE WE ARE WRITING THIS LETTER TO FOLLOW UP OUR MEETING IN WHICH WE DISCUSSED WHAT WE FEEL IS ONE OF THE MOST UNIQUE COOPERATIVE RESEARCH RELATIONSHIPS WE HAVE SEEN BETWEEN INDUSTRY, RESEARCH FOUNDATIONS AND UNIVERSITIES. THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION IN COLLABORATION WITH WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY AND HUGHES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, IVC., (A MINORITY OWNED COMPANY FEELS WE MAY HAVE ADVANCED PROGRESS IN BREAST CANCER RESEARCH TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT. OUR COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS HAVE ALLOWED US TO TEST A NEW COMPOUND TARGETED FOR TREATMENT OF BREAST CANCER IN WOMEN (AND SYNTHESIZED BY THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION) AGAINST TAMOXIFEN, A COMPOUND CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED FOR TREATMENT OF 3REAST CANCER IN WOMEN BY THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE. OUR PRELIMINARY RESULTS SUGGEST THAT THIS NEW COMPOUND (4-NITROESTRONE 3-METHYLETHER) DRAMATICALLY OUT PERFORMS TAMOXIFEN IN OUR RAT MAMMARY CANCER MODEL. AS A RESULT OF OUR EFFORTS, THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION HAS BEEN INFORMED OF PRELIMINARY DECISION BY THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE TO TAKE THIS COMPOUND INTO CLINICAL TRIALS IN BREAST CANCER PATIENTS AFTER ADEQUATE REVIEW. THIS WE FEEL IS EXCITING IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT DEATH RATES IN WOMEN DUE TO BREAST CANCER HAVE ESSENTIALLY REMAINED UNCHANGED DISPITE RAPID PROGRESS IN CANCER RESEARCH IN OTHER AREAS. IT SEEMS THAT AGAIN RESEARCH FUNDING TARGETED FOR WOMEN PROBABLY FOLLOWS THE SAME PATTERN AS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN. THE PROBLEM WE FACE IS THAT THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION AND WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY ARE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITH LIMITED FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH AND HUGHES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC. IS A SMALL STRUGGLING MINORITY OWNED COMPANY. WE ARE THEREFORE REQUESTING A GIFT FROM YOU TO THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION FOR $100,000, EAR-MARKED SPECIFICALLY FOR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THIS CRITICAL PROJECT. HUGHES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT HAS PERFORMED APPROXIMATELY $50,000 WORTH OF WORK FOR THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION AND HAS INVOICED THE MICHIGAN CANCER FOUNDATION APPROXIMATELY $2,000. IF WE HAD INSISTED OV INVOICING THE FOUNDATION MORE FOR OUR EFFORTS THEY COULD NOT HAVE PERFORMED THE PROJECT UNDER THEIR PRESENT FEDERAL GRANT. WE THEREFORE MADE THE DECISION THAT OUR COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS SHOULD BE PURSUED AND THE RESULTS EVALUATED BEFORE FURTHER CHARGES ARE MADE. NOW WE MUST INSIST ON PAYMENT FOR FURTHER WORK ON THIS PROJECT AND THIS PROJECT MUST CONTINUE FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND. |