PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 21, 1995
Amends the Federal criminal code to increase the penalties for using hazardous or injurious devices (e.g., tree spiking) on Federal lands. Increases the penalty imposed upon an individual who causes: (1) serious bodily harm to a maximum term of 40 years' imprisonment; and (2) bodily harm to a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment. Allows an individual: (1) who causes property damage or avoidance costs which exceeded $10,000 to be imprisoned for up to 20 years, fined, or both; and (2) punished after one or more previous violations to be imprisoned for 20 years. Authorizes an injured person to commence a civil action against the individual responsible. Grants jurisdiction to the district courts. Allows the court to award monetary damages, costs of litigation, and reasonable attorney and expert witness fees to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party. Requires the Attorney General to reimburse a local authority that incurs any costs as a result of that authority's participation or cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of such an offense.
People & committees
Rep. Chenoweth-Hage, Helen [R-ID-1] · R–ID
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 Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Nov 15, 2019. 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.2094 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.2094 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.2094 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.2094 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.