Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
This bill amends 49 U.S.C. §60123(b) to expand the list of prohibited conduct involving pipeline facilities. It replaces the phrase "damaging or destroying" with "damaging, destroying, vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of." The amendment broadens the types of acts that can trigger federal criminal liability related to pipeline infrastructure.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties impacts; conservatives stress infrastructure protection.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive amendment that clearly specifies the textual change to 49 U.S.C. §60123(b).
This bill amends 49 U.S.C. §60123(b) to expand the list of prohibited conduct involving pipeline facilities.
It replaces the phrase "damaging or destroying" with "damaging, destroying, vandalizing, tampering with, disrupting the operation or construction of, or preventing the operation or construction of." The amendment broadens the types of acts that can trigger federal criminal liability related to pipeline infrastructure.
Technically simple and defensible as infrastructure protection, but civil-liberties objections and requirement for wide support reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive amendment that clearly specifies the textual change to 49 U.S.C. §60123(b). It is precise in mechanism but omits explanatory findings, fiscal acknowledgment, boundary definitions, mens rea clarifications, and monitoring or oversight provisions.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties impacts; conservatives stress infrastructure protection.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties impacts; conservatives stress infrastructure protection.
Views the bill as increasing protection for energy infrastructure but worries it may criminalize protest and civil disobedience.
Concern focuses on vague or broad terms enabling prosecutorial overreach against environmental and community protesters.
Sees a legitimate government interest in protecting infrastructure but seeks clearer definitions and procedural safeguards.
Likely to weigh public safety gains against civil liberties and federal-state balance before fully supporting.
Largely favorable: views the bill as strengthening deterrence against sabotage and protecting energy infrastructure, jobs, and national security.
Prefers robust enforcement against disruptive actors.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and defensible as infrastructure protection, but civil-liberties objections and requirement for wide support reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties impacts; conservatives stress infrastructure protection.
Technically simple and defensible as infrastructure protection, but civil-liberties objections and requirement for wide support reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped substantive amendment that clearly specifies the textual change to 49 U.S.C. §60123(b). It is precise in mechanism but omits explanatory findings…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.