PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 12, 2016
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Improvement Act of 2016
This bill amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to direct the Department of Commerce, through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to convert the current program for creation and support of regional centers for the transfer of manufacturing technology into one for creation and support of manufacturing extension centers for the transfer of manufacturing technology and best business practices, to be known as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension (HME) Partnership, and reauthorized for FY2017-FY2020.
Each Hollings Manufacturing Extension Center may be affiliated with an institution of higher education or a state or local government, as well as with a U.S.-based nonprofit institution (or consortium of such institutions) as under current law.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorized Center activities that currently include selective, short-term loans of advanced manufacturing equipment to small manufacturing firms shall be replaced by facilitation of collaborations and partnerships between small and medium-sized manufacturing companies and community colleges and area career and technical education schools.
The bill repeals the current six-year limit on federal financial assistance to a Center, allowing open-ended assistance through a cooperative agreement.
Commerce shall appoint a panel to review and evaluate each Center receiving financial assistance during its third and eighth years of operation, but the Department shall review a Center directly during its fifth year of operation.
Each Center shall establish a board to oversee its operations.
The bill establishes a Manufacturing Extension Partnership Advisory Board.
The NIST shall establish within the HME Partnership:
a program of competitive awards for a participating Center, or a consortium of Centers, to develop projects to solve new or emerging manufacturing problems; and
an innovation services initiative to assist small and medium-sized manufacturers in improving profitability through the reduction of energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental waste.
People & committees
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE] · D–DE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2779 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2779 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2779 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2779 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.