†
269
HR 2272 EAS
Authorization Act of 2002 (as amended by subsection (b))
(42 U.S.C. 1862n(a))—
(1) $84,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $94,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(3) $106,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
(4) $140,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
(b) TEACHER INSTITUTES FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.—
Section 9(a) of the National Science Foundation Authoriza-
tion Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘summer
or’’ and inserting ‘‘teacher institutes for the 21st cen-
tury, as described in paragraph (7),’’;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para-
graph (8); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the fol-
lowing:
‘‘(7) TEACHER INSTITUTES FOR THE 21ST CEN-
TURY.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Teacher institutes for
the 21st century carried out in accordance with
paragraph (3)(B) shall—
‘‘(i) be carried out in conjunction with
a school served by the local educational
agency in the partnership;
†
270
HR 2272 EAS
‘‘(ii) be science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics focused institutes that
provide professional development to elemen-
tary school and secondary school teachers;
‘‘(iii) serve teachers who are considered
highly qualified (as defined in section 9101
of the Elementary and Secondary Edu-
cation Act of 1965), teach high-need sub-
jects, and teach in high-need schools (as de-
scribed in section 1114(a)(1) of the Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act of
1965);
‘‘(iv) focus on the theme and structure
developed by the Director under subpara-
graph (C);
‘‘(v) be content-based and build on
school year curricula that are experiment-
oriented, content-based, and grounded in
current research;
‘‘(vi) ensure that the pedagogy compo-
nent is designed around specific strategies
that are relevant to teaching the subject and
content on which teachers are being trained,
which may include training teachers in the
essential components of reading instruction
†
271
HR 2272 EAS
for adolescents in order to improve student
reading skills within the subject areas of
science, technology, engineering, and mathe-
matics;
‘‘(vii) be a multiyear program that is
conducted for a period of not less than 2
weeks per year;
‘‘(viii) provide for direct interaction
between participants in and faculty of the
teacher institute;
‘‘(ix) have a component that includes
the use of the Internet;
‘‘(x) provide for followup training in
the classroom during the academic year for
a period of not less than 3 days, which may
or may not be consecutive, for participants
in the teacher institute, except that for
teachers in rural local educational agencies,
the followup training may be provided
through the Internet;
‘‘(xi) provide teachers participating in
the teacher institute with travel expense re-
imbursement and classroom materials re-
lated to the teacher institute, and may in-
clude providing stipends as necessary; and
†
272
HR 2272 EAS
‘‘(xii) establish a mechanism to pro-
vide supplemental support during the aca-
demic year for teacher institute partici-
pants to apply the knowledge and skills
gained at the teacher institute.
‘‘(B) OPTIONAL
MEMBERS
OF
THE
PART-
NERSHIP.—In addition to the partnership re-
quirement under paragraph (2), an institution
of higher education or eligible nonprofit organi-
zation (or consortium) desiring a grant for a
teacher institute for the 21st century may also
partner with a teacher organization, museum, or
educational partnership organization.
‘‘(C) THEME AND STRUCTURE.—Each year,
not later than 180 days before the application
deadline for a grant under this section, the Di-
rector shall, in consultation with a broad group
of relevant education organizations, develop a
theme and structure for the teacher institutes of
the 21st century supported under paragraph
(3)(B).’’.
†
273
HR 2272 EAS
SEC. 4015. PARTNERSHIPS FOR ACCESS TO LABORATORY
SCIENCE.
(a) GRANT PROGRAM.—Section 8(8) of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Public Law
107–368) is amended—
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through
(F) as clauses (i) through (vi), respectively, and in-
denting appropriately;
(2) by moving the flush language at the end 2
ems to the right;
(3) in the flush language at the end, by striking
‘‘paragraph’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph’’;
(4) by striking ‘‘INITIATIVE.—A program of’’
and inserting ‘‘INITIATIVE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A program of’’; and
(5) by inserting at the end the following:
‘‘(B) PILOT PROGRAM.—
‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with
subparagraph (A)(v), the Director shall es-
tablish a pilot program designated as ‘Part-
nerships for Access to Laboratory Science’
to award grants to partnerships to pay the
Federal share of the costs of improving lab-
oratories and providing instrumentation as
part of a comprehensive program to enhance
the quality of mathematics, science, engi-
†
274
HR 2272 EAS
neering, and technology instruction at the
secondary school level. Grants under this
subparagraph may be used for—
‘‘(I) purchase, rental, or leasing of
equipment, instrumentation, and other
scientific educational materials;
‘‘(II) 
acquire 
appropriate
nanotechnology equipment and soft-
ware designed for teaching students
about nanotechnology in the classroom;
‘‘(III) professional development
and training for teachers aligned with
activities supported under section 2123
of the ESEA of 1965;
‘‘(IV) development of instructional
programs designed to integrate the lab-
oratory experience with classroom in-
struction and to be consistent with
State mathematics and science, and to
the extent applicable, technology and
engineering, 
academic 
achievement
standards;
‘‘(V) training in laboratory safety
for relevant school personnel;
†
275
HR 2272 EAS
‘‘(VI) design and implementation
of hands-on laboratory experiences to
encourage the interest of individuals
identified in section 33 or 34 of the
Science and Engineering Equal Op-
portunities Act (42 U.S.C. 1885a or
1885b) in mathematics, science, engi-
neering, and technology and help pre-
pare such individuals to pursue post-
secondary studies in these fields; and
‘‘(VII) assessment of the activities
funded under this subparagraph.
‘‘(ii) PARTNERSHIP.—Grants awarded
under clause (i) shall be to a partnership
that—
‘‘(I) includes an institution of
higher education or a community col-
lege;
‘‘(II) includes a high-need local
educational agency;
‘‘(III) includes a business or eligi-
ble nonprofit organization; and
‘‘(IV) may include a State edu-
cational agency, other public agency,
†
276
HR 2272 EAS
National Laboratory, or community-
based organization.
‘‘(iii) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal
share of the cost of activities carried out
using amounts from a grant under clause
(i) shall not exceed 30 percent.’’.
(b) REPORT.—The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall evaluate the effectiveness of activities car-
ried out under the pilot projects funded by the grant pro-
gram established pursuant to the amendment made by sub-
section (b) in improving student performance in mathe-
matics, science, engineering, and technology and rec-
ommend whether such activities should continue. A report
documenting the results of that evaluation shall be sub-
mitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Trans-
portation and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Science
and Technology of the House of Representatives not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. The
report shall identify best practices and materials for the
classroom developed and demonstrated by grant awardees.
(c) SUNSET.—The provisions of this section shall cease
to have force or effect at the beginning of fiscal year 2012.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are
authorized to be appropriated to the National Science
†
277
HR 2272 EAS
Foundation to carry out this section and the amendments
made by this section such sums for fiscal year 2008 and
each of the 3 succeeding fiscal years.
DIVISION E—GENERAL
PROVISIONS
SEC. 5001. COLLECTION OF DATA RELATING TO TRADE IN
SERVICES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce
shall establish a program within the Bureau of Economic
Analysis to collect and study data relating to export and
import of services. As part of the program, the Secretary
shall annually—
(1) provide data collection and analysis relating
to export and import of services;
(2) collect and analyze data for service imports
and exports in not less than 40 service industry cat-
egories, on a state-by-state basis;
(3) include data collection and analysis of the
employment effects of exports and imports on the serv-
ice industry; and
(4) integrate ongoing and planned data collec-
tion and analysis initiatives in research and develop-
ment and innovation.
†
278
HR 2272 EAS
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Com-
merce such sums for each of the fiscal years 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011, 2012, to carry out the provisions of this section.
SEC. 5002. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING SMALL BUSI-
NESS GROWTH AND CAPITAL MARKETS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) the United States has the most fair, most
transparent, and most efficient capital markets in the
world, in part due to its strong securities statutory
and regulatory scheme;
(2) it is of paramount importance for the contin-
ued growth of our Nation’s economy, that our capital
markets retain their leading position in the world;
(3) small businesses are vital participants in
United States capital markets, and play a critical
role in future economic growth and high-wage job cre-
ation;
(4) section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, has greatly enhanced the quality of corporate
governance and financial reporting for public compa-
nies and increased investor confidence;
(5) the Securities and Exchange Commission (in
this section referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’) and the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (in this
†
279
HR 2272 EAS
section referred to as the ‘‘PCAOB’’) have both deter-
mined that the current auditing standard imple-
menting section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has imposed unnecessary and unintended cost
burdens on small and mid-sized public companies;
(6) the Commission and PCAOB are now near
completion of a 2-year process intended to revise the
standard in order to provide more efficient and effec-
tive regulation; and
(7) the chairman of the Commission recently has
said, with respect to section 404 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, ‘‘We don’t need to change the
law, we need to change the way the law is imple-
mented. It is the implementation of the law that has
caused the excessive burden, not the law itself. That’s
an important distinction. I don’t believe these impor-
tant investor protections, which are even now only a
few years old, should be opened up for amendment, or
that they need to be.’’.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that the Commission and the PCAOB should complete
promulgation of the final rules implementing section 404
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262).
†
280
HR 2272 EAS
SEC. 5003. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REVIEW
OF ACTIVITIES, GRANTS, AND PROGRAMS.
Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to Congress that—
(1) examines each annual and interim report re-
quired to be submitted to Congress under this Act (in-
cluding any amendment made by this Act);
(2) assesses or evaluates assessments of the effec-
tiveness of the new or expended activities, grants, and
programs carried out under this Act (including any
amendment made by this Act); and
(3) includes any recommendations as the Comp-
troller General determines are appropriate to improve
the effectiveness of such activities, grants, and pro-
grams.
SEC. 5004. PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDING ANTI-COMPETI-
TIVENESS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Law; no
federal funds shall be provided to any organization or enti-
ty that advocates against tax competition or United States
tax competitiveness.
Provided, however, that advocating for effective tax in-
formation exchange, advocating for effective transfer pric-
ing, and advocating for income tax treaties is not consid-
†
281
HR 2272 EAS
ered to be advocating against tax competition of United
States tax competitiveness.
SEC. 5005. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON FREE ONLINE COLLEGE
DEGREE PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce
shall enter into a contract with the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct and complete a feasibility study on cre-
ating a national, free online college degree program that
would be available to all individuals described under section
484(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1091(a)(5)) who wish to pursue a degree in a field of stra-
tegic importance to the United States and where expertise
is in demand, such as mathematics, sciences, and foreign
languages. The study shall look at the need for a free college
degree program as well as the feasibility of—
(1) developing online course content;
(2) developing sufficiently rigorous tests to deter-
mine mastery of a field of study; and
(3) sustaining the program through private
funding.
(b) STUDY.—The study described in subsection (a)
shall also include a review of existing online education pro-
grams to determine the extent to which these programs offer
a rigorous curriculum in areas like mathematics and
†
282
HR 2272 EAS
science and the National Academy of Sciences shall make
recommendations for how online degree programs can be as-
sessed and accredited.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$500,000 for fiscal year 2008.
SEC. 5006. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEEMED EX-
PORTS.
It is the sense of Senate that—
(1) United States government policies related to
deemed exports should safeguard United States na-
tional security and protect fundamental research.
(2) The Department of Commerce has established
the Deemed Export Advisory Committee to develop
recommendations for improving current controls on
deemed exports.
(3) The Administration and Congress should
consider the recommendations of the Deemed Export
Advisory Committee in its development and imple-
mentation of export control policies.
SEC. 5007. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CAPITAL
MARKETS.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Senate finds that—
(1) United States capital markets are losing
their competitive edge in the face of intensifying glob-
†
283
HR 2272 EAS
al competition, posing a risk to economic growth, a
problem that is well-documented in initial public of-
ferings (IPO), over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives,
securitization, and traditional lending;
(2) according to the Senator Charles E. Schumer
and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg report, entitled
‘‘Sustaining New York’s and the US’s Global Finan-
cial Services Leadership’’, ‘‘In looking at several of
the critical contested investment banking and sales
and trading markets—initial public offerings (IPOs),
over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, and debt—it is
clear that the declining position of the US goes be-
yond this natural market evolution to more control-
lable, intrinsic issues of US competitiveness. As mar-
ket effectiveness, liquidity and safety become more
prevalent in the world’s financial markets, the com-
petitive arena for financial services is shifting toward
a new set of factors—like availability of skilled people
and a balanced and effective legal and regulatory en-
vironment—where the US is moving in the wrong di-
rection.’’;
(3) further, the report referred to in paragraph
(2) stated that—
(A) ‘‘The IPO market also offers the most
dramatic illustration of the change in capital-
†
284
HR 2272 EAS
raising needs around the world, and US ex-
changes are rapidly losing ground to foreign ri-
vals. When looking at all IPOs that took place
globally in 2006, the share of IPO volume at-
tracted by US exchanges is barely one-third of
that captured in 2001. By contrast, the global
share of IPO volume captured by European ex-
changes has expanded by more than 30 percent
over the same period, while non-Japan Asian
markets have doubled their equivalent market
share since 2001. When one considers mega-IPOs
– those over $1 billion – US exchanges attracted
57 percent of such transactions in 2001, com-
pared with just 16 percent during the first ten
months of 2006.’’; and
(B) ‘‘London already enjoys clear leadership
in the fast-growing and innovative over-the-
counter (OTC) derivatives market. This is sig-
nificant because of the trading flow that sur-
rounds derivatives markets and because of the in-
novation these markets drive, both of which are
key competitive factors for financial centers.
Dealers and investors increasingly see derivatives
and cash markets as interchangeable and are
therefore combining trading operations for both
†
285
HR 2272 EAS
products. Indeed, the derivatives markets can be
more liquid than the underlying cash markets.
Therefore, as London takes the global lead in de-
rivatives, America’s competitiveness in both cash
and derivatives flow trading is at risk, as is its
position as a center for financial innovation.’’;
(4) on March 13, 2007, the Department of the
Treasury convened a conference on United States cap-
ital markets competitiveness, where—
(A) key policymakers, consumer advocates,
members of the international community, busi-
ness representatives, and academic experts, each
with different perspectives, discussed ways to
keep United States capital markets the strongest
and most innovative in the world; and
(B) conference delegates examined the im-
pact of the United States regulatory structure
and philosophy, the legal and corporate govern-
ance environment, and the auditing profession
and financial reporting on United States capital
markets competitiveness;
(5) the foundation of any competitive capital
market is investor confidence, and since 1930, the
United States has required some of the most extensive
†
286
HR 2272 EAS
financial disclosures, supported by one of the most ro-
bust enforcement regimes in the world;
(6) a balanced regulatory system is essential to
protecting investors and the efficient functioning of
capital markets; and
(7) too much regulation stifles entrepreneurship,
competition, and innovation, and too little regulation
creates excessive risk to industry, investors, and the
overall system.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE.—It is the sense of the Sen-
ate that—
(1) Congress, the President, regulators, industry
leaders, and other stakeholders should take the nec-
essary steps to reclaim the preeminent position of the
United States in the global financial services market-
place;
(2) the Federal and State financial regulatory
agencies should, to the maximum extent possible, co-
ordinate activities on significant policy matters, so as
not to impose regulations that may have adverse un-
intended consequences on innovativeness with respect
to financial products, instruments, and services, or
that impose regulatory costs that are disproportionate
to their benefits, and, at the same time, ensure that
the regulatory framework overseeing the United States
†
287
HR 2272 EAS
capital markets continues to promote and protect the
interests of investors in those markets; and
(3) given the complexity of the financial services
marketplace today, Congress should exercise vigorous
oversight over Federal regulatory and statutory re-
quirements affecting the financial services industry
and consumers, with the goal of eliminating excessive
regulation and problematic implementation of exist-
ing laws and regulations, while ensuring that nec-
essary investor protections are not compromised.
Attest:
Secretary.