PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 31, 2017
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
United States-Israel Cybersecurity Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a grant program to support cybersecurity research and development, and the demonstration and commercialization of cybersecurity technology, in accordance with the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the State of Israel on Cooperation in Science and Technology for Homeland Security Matters, dated May 29, 2008, or a successor agreement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Grants may be awarded for social science research and technology intended to identify, protect against, respond to, and recover from cybersecurity threats.
To be eligible for a grant, a project must be a joint venture between: (1) for-profit, nonprofit, or academic entities (including U.S. national laboratories) in the United States and Israel; or (2) the governments of the United States and Israel.
Grants shall be awarded only for projects considered unclassified by both the United States and Israel.
DHS must require cost sharing of at least 50% from nonfederal sources for grant activities, but it may reduce the nonfederal percentage if necessary on a case-by-case basis.
DHS must establish an advisory board to monitor the impartial scientific and technical merit method by which grants are awarded and provide periodic reviews of the actions taken to carry out the program.
The grant program terminates seven years after this bill's enactment.
People & committees
Rep. Langevin, James R. [D-RI-2] · D–RI
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 Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H798-799)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H798-799)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 612.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H798-800)
Mr. Ratcliffe moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. 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.612 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.612 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.612 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.612 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.