PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 25, 2005
Requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate the retail price of gasoline in a state in which the average price of regular grade gasoline has increased 20 percent or more for at least seven days during any three-month period in order to determine if the price is being artificially manipulated by reducing refinery capacity or by any other form of manipulation.
Requires the FTC to present investigation results at a public hearing in the state in which the retail price of gasoline was investigated.
Requires the FTC, in cooperation with the Attorney General of the relevant state, to take appropriate action if it determines that the increase in gasoline prices in a state is a result of market manipulation.
Requires the FTC to notify the Secretary of Energy, who shall, within two weeks of such notification, decide if the Strategic Petroleum Reserve should be used to assure adequate supplies of gasoline, if the FTC determines that the increase in gasoline prices in a state is not the result of market manipulation.
People & committees
Rep. Filner, Bob [D-CA-51] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
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: Jan 16, 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.2627 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.2627 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.2627 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.2627 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.