Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 8, 2005
Gas Stamps Act of 2005 - Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) establish a program for the equitable allocation among the states of gas stamps for distribution to individuals eligible to receive food stamps who can demonstrate a need for gasoline; and (2) provide for the distribution of gas stamps in conjunction with the distribution of food stamps, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sets a $330 million limit for such national distribution in each of the first three months after enactment of this Act.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose an excise tax upon the sale in the United States of any crude oil, natural gas, and any fuel which is a product of crude oil or natural gas, equal to the windfall profit on such sale.
Defines "windfall profit" as so much of the profit on such sale as exceeds a 15 percent pretax rate of return.
Imposes liability for the windfall profits tax upon the seller.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3712 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3712 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3712 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3712 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.