PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 2003
Amends the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act to prohibit a franchisor from transferring or assigning its interest in the franchise during the term of the franchise unless the franchisor, at least 45 days before the proposed transfer or assignment, has first: (1) made a bona fide offer to the franchisee to sell, transfer, or assign to the franchisee the franchisor's interests in the leased marketing premises; or (2) offered the right of first refusal (of at least 45 days' duration) to the franchisee regarding an offer made by another to acquire the franchisor's interest in the premises.Declares null, void, and unenforceable a franchise or marketing agreement that, in the event of litigation, calls for payment by either party of the prevailing party's legal expenses.States that it shall be a violation of the Act for a refiner or distributor to fix or maintain motor fuel retail prices at a retail outlet supplied by that refiner or distributor, unless the refiner or distributor also operates such outlet.
People & committees
Rep. Wynn, Albert Russell [D-MD-4] · D–MD
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 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 15, 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.949 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.949 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.949 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.949 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.