PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Mar 15, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act or the SENSE Act
(Sec. 2) This bill modifies the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule as it applies to certain electric utility steam generating units (electric power plants) that convert coal refuse into energy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must maintain the existing limits for sulfur dioxide emissions from coal refuse utilities under the cap-and-trade system, instead of applying the more restrictive limits that are scheduled to go into effect in 2017. (Under the current system, a cap sets a limit on emissions. The cap is lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released. Utilities may only emit as much carbon as permitted under their allowances, which may be traded with others.) Thus, the EPA must allocate to coal refuse utilities in 2017 and subsequent years the same number of emissions allowances for sulfur dioxide that have been previously allocated to coal refuse utilities, instead of reducing allowances.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
After January 1, 2017, a coal refuse utility may not trade any unused sulfur dioxide allowances. Those allowances may be saved by the coal refuse utilities for use in future compliance periods.
The EPA may not increase the total number of allowances for sulfur dioxide emissions from all sources that are allocated to each state.
The bill eases emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from coal refuse utilities. The EPA must allow the utilities to meet compliance requirements by meeting the maximum achievable control technology standards for either hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide.
People & committees
Rep. Rothfus, Keith J. [R-PA-12] · R–PA
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 Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 231 - 183 (Roll no. 123). (text: CR H1371)
House roll call 123 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 231 - 183 (Roll no. 123).(text: CR H1371)
House roll call 123 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 173 - 236 (Roll no. 122). (consideration: CR H1381)
House roll call 122 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H1380)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Motion to Recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to add a new section that adds parameters for an effective date.
Ms. Adams moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (consideration: CR H1379-1381; text: CR H1379)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H1379)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 3797.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was on adoption of amendments which were debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Veasey amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Veasey demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 640, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Veasey amendment No. 5.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 640, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Peters amendment No. 4.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Bera amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Bera demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 640, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bera amendment No. 3.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Pallone amendment No.2, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Pallone demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 640, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pallone amendment No. 2.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Pallone amendment No.1, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Pallone demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 640, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Pallone amendment No. 1
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 3797.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Lynn A. Westmoreland to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 640 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 3797.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 640. (consideration: CR H1365-1381)
Rule H. Res. 640 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 640 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4596 and H.R. 3797.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 340.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-445.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-445.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 22.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H7094-7095)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 H.R.3797 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.3797 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.3797 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.3797 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.