A lot of attention is being paid to Manufacturing Extension program.

Constant pressure on politicians and Bush administration political appointees from thousands of small manufacturers to restore funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is beginning to pay off. The House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for cutting the program this year by 63 percent voted on June 15 to restore funding to last year's level of $106 million.

Meanwhile, the House Science Committee approved authorization of funding for MEP. The "Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2004" passed the Science Committee June 16 on a mostly party-line vote with all Republicans voting in favor and all Democrats save for one voting against. Democrats on the Science Committee said they were unhappy with the bill because it did little more than reauthorize MEP.

Democrats offered 12 amendments to the manufacturing bill including full funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program, creating an Undersecretary of Commerce for Manufacturing and Technology and re-authorizing the Department of Energy's Industries of the Future program. All were rejected by Republicans due mainly to budgetary concerns.

Science Committee ranking member Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said: "We find ourselves in a position dictated by the White House .... By letting the White House set the parameters for our action, we are limited by their narrow vision of what can be done to help our workers and companies and communities."

Elsewhere in the news with regard to the MEP program, the Commerce Department says it wants to run a new competition for all the country's centers starting later this year. In a May 13 letter to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, Commerce Department CFO Otto Wolff said the department will start meeting with states and centers soliciting comments on how best to structure a competition.

After receiving input, NIST will release a Federal Register notice around September 1, 2004, requesting proposals that would be due October 31, 2004. "Awards are expected to be effective January 1, 2005," says letter from Wolff.

The trade association representing the centers doesn't think the recompetition is a good idea, however. Such action "would destroy an effective national infrastructure that has taken 14 years to build," says the Modernization Forum. "Operations and local partnerships of state-based centers ... will be thrown into turmoil." Developing proposals would be expensive and service to manufacturers during that time would stall. "Manufacturers will be reluctant to initiate projects with current MEP centers for fear that centers may not exist to complete projects," says the Modernization Forum.

The National Academy of Public Administration has also weighed in on how to restructure the MEP program for optimum efficiency. In a new report entitled "Alternative Business Models" for MEP, the academy recommends a "fundamental change in the mix of the types of services MEP provides as well as the structures for delivering them." There is a greater need for centers to provide companies with services associated with technology diffusion, product development and supply chain integration, says the academy.

Meanwhile, the Commerce Department is trying to broaden the government's base of support for MEP. Commerce Undersecretary for Technology Phil Bond signed a memorandum of understanding with Sue Payton, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts on June 8 to encourage collaboration and technology transfer between Defense Department laboratories and MEP centers.

DOD and Commerce want to "establish a national rapid response defense manufacturing supply chain to meet urgent defense needs, reduce costs, eliminate shortages and expand the supplier base for parts and equipment supporting warfighting needs," says the MOU.

Finally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is confronting life with a smaller budget for 2004. The agency is on the verge of reducing its staff by about 180 employees due to budget cuts in 2004. "We are trying to make it as easy as we can, but when push comes to shove, unfortunately, we're going to lose some talented people," says a NIST spokesman. "It's unlikely that their positions will be replaced even if the budget upturns" in 2005.