A bill to amend section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable result.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · 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 for causing: (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's and expert witness fees to any prevailing or substantially prevailing party.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Sen. Craig, Larry E. [R-ID] · R–ID

Committees

Judiciary Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jul 21, 1995
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Jul 21, 1995
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S10498)
Jul 21, 1995
Introduced in Senate

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in Senate · Jul 21, 1995 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.1059 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

Discuss S.1059, 104th Congress: A bill to amend section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable result.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1059

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1995-07-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/s1059/BILLS-104s1059is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze S.1059 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1059 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

Discuss S.1059, 104th Congress: A bill to amend section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable result.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1059

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1995-07-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/s1059/BILLS-104s1059is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1059 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1059 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

Discuss S.1059, 104th Congress: A bill to amend section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable result.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1059

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1995-07-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/s1059/BILLS-104s1059is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1059 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1059 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss S.1059, 104th Congress: A bill to amend section 1864 of title 18, United States Code, relating to tree spiking, to add avoidance costs as a punishable result.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1059

Text version to examine: Introduced in Senate · 1995-07-21.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/104/bills/s1059/BILLS-104s1059is.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2026-08-10T11:53:59Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine S.1059 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.