PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 19, 2012
Empower States Act of 2012 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act, with respect to enforcement of drinking water regulations, to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from taking any enforcement action against a state with primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems or a company or individual within the state, unless: (1) the Administrator determines that there is an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment, and (2) the state failed to take corrective action.
Prohibits the Administrator from amending or revoking any program of a state with partial or total primary enforcement responsibility unless the Administrator determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the program fails to effectively protect drinking water in the state.
Requires the head of a federal department or agency, before issuing or promulgating any guideline or regulation relating to oil and gas exploration and production on federal, state, tribal, or fee land pursuant to federal law or executive order, to seek comments from and consult with the head of each affected state, state agency, and Indian tribe at a location within their jurisdiction.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires federal departments and agencies to develop Statements of Energy and Economic Impact that detail and analyze: (1) adverse effects of an action on energy supply, distribution, or use; and (2) impact on the domestic economy if the action is taken. Prohibits imposition of any new or modified oil and gas regulation unless the head of the applicable department or agency determines: (1) that the rule is necessary to prevent immediate harm to human health or the environment, and (2) by clear and convincing evidence that the state or tribe does not have an existing reasonable alternative to the proposed regulation. Requires any regulation promulgated after enactment of this Act that requires disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals to refer to the database managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. Sets forth procedures for judicial review of such regulations.
People & committees
Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND] · R–ND
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 Environment and Public Works.
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.3573 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.3573 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.3573 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.3573 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.