PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 26, 2006
United States-Israel Energy Cooperation Act - Directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the United States-Israel Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD), or the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), to establish a grant program for joint ventures, composed of both Israeli and U.S. private business entities or of U.S. and Israeli academic persons, to implement projects to encourage cooperation between the United States and Israel on research, development, or commercialization of alternative energy, improved energy efficiency, or renewable energy sources.
Directs the Secretary to implement this Act through existing programs at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Establishes in the Department of Energy an International Energy Advisory Board to advise the Secretary on the grant program and grant recipients.
Authorizes the Secretary to expend not more than $20 million to implement this Act for each of FY2006-2012 from funds previously authorized to the Office.
People & committees
Rep. Shadegg, John B. [R-AZ-3] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5874-5875)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5874-5875)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2730.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5874-5878)
Mr. Shadegg moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 305.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 109-543.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 109-543.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 H.R.2730 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 H.R.2730 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 H.R.2730 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 H.R.2730 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.