PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 6, 2005
Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to: (1) initiate an inquiry and report to Congress on whether the retail price of gasoline both before and after Hurricane Katrina, including the price of gasoline containing ethanol, is being artificially manipulated by reducing refinery capacity, by speculation in oil market, or by any other form of manipulation; and (2) hold a public hearing to present the inquiry results.
Instructs the FTC to take appropriate action in cooperation with the attorney general of any affected state if it determines that the increase in gasoline prices, including gasoline containing ethanol, is a result of market manipulation.
Sets a deadline for the Secretary of Energy to decide whether to implement expanded use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to assure adequate gasoline supplies, if the FTC determines that the increase in gasoline prices is not the result of market manipulation.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Ben [D-NE] · D–NE
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.1610 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 S.1610 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 S.1610 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 S.1610 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.