```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 322 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 322

   Entitled the ``State Correctional Litigation Reform Act of 1995''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. McIntosh introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   Entitled the ``State Correctional Litigation Reform Act of 1995''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

       TITLE I--STATE CORRECTIONAL LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Law Abiding Citizens Safety Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

    (A) Findings.--Congress finds that:
            (1) Among the most important purposes of the criminal law 
        are: the need for criminal punishments to reflect the 
        seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to 
        provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate 
        deterrence to criminal conduct, and to protect the public from 
        further crimes.
            (2) ``The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prison 
        conditions; only those deprivations denying the minimal 
        civilized measure of life's necessities are sufficiently grave 
        to form the basis of an Eighth Amendment violation''. Wilson v. 
        Seiter, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991), citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 
        U.S. 337 (1981).
            (3) An inmate should not be able to successfully challenge 
        conditions of confinement of an institution unless he 
        establishes both that the condition constitutes the unnecessary 
        and wanton infliction of pain such that he is deprived the 
        minimum civilized measure of life's necessities and that prison 
        officials are deliberately indifferent to his plight. Wilson v. 
        Seiter, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991), Helling et al. v. McKinney 
        (United States Supreme Court, No. 91-1958, June 18, 1993).
            (4) As Judge Posner recognized, `` * * * the infliction of 
        disutility * * * is one of the objectives of criminal 
        punishment; only if the only objective of punishment were 
        incapacitation could it be argued that living conditions should 
        be as comfortable in prison as outside.'' Davenport v. 
        DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1313 (7th Cir. section 1988).
            (5) Since 1960, the average total State correctional 
        expenditures per inmate have increased almost twice as fast as 
        median income and more than twice as fast as the poverty 
        threshold.
            (6) Expenditures on prisons in excess of levels necessary 
        to meet constitutionally mandated conditions of confinement 
        increase the cost of building and administering institutions, 
        thereby diverting funds which could be used to expand current 
        prison capacity throughout the country. Additional prison beds 
        are desperately needed to stop the early release of repeat and 
        violent offenders due to insufficient prison capacity.
            (7) Public funds that could go to assist the law-abiding 
        poor are being expended to provide facilities and services for 
        inmates at a level exceeding the minimum standard of living for 
        the law-abiding poor and exceeding the conditions mandated by 
        the Constitution.
            (8) There is a need for the Congress, on behalf of the 
        people, to express and codify a national standard of minimum 
        decency for prison conditions. Inmates should not be entitled, 
        by virtue of their imprisonment, to live better than law-
        abiding persons living at the poverty guideline level of income 
        as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services.
            (9) Federal courts have been besieged by frivolous 
        litigation brought by inmates incarcerated in institutions. 
        Lacking a legislative expression of the contemporary standards 
        of decency relating to prison conditions, Federal courts have 
        become unduly involved in the micromanagement of correctional 
        facilities, a role which the Supreme Court recognizes that 
        courts are ill equipped to handle and which is better left to 
        the expertise of prison administrators, Procunier v. Martinez, 
        416 U.S. 396. 404-405 (1974).
            (10) Courts, upon a finding that the conditions of an 
        institution are unconstitutional, have ignored the 
        constitutional limitations on the judiciary and the principles 
        of federalism by issuing injunctions which mandate changes in 
        State prison systems which far exceed what the constitution 
        requires. Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976) 
        (Injunction with detailed instructions for administering the 
        prison, mandating that each inmate have 60 square feet of 
        living space, visitation privileges at least once a week in a 
        comfortable visitation area, a meaningful job and the 
        opportunity to participate in basic educational programs and 
        vocational training designed to teach a marketable skill; that 
        the administrators hire a food service supervisor with a 
        minimum of a bachelor's degree in dietetics, a nutrition 
        consultant who is a registered dietitian and a full-time 
recreational director with at least a bachelor's degree in recreational 
or physical training); Jones v. Wittenburg, 330 F. Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 
1971) (Injunction which included mandatory salary increases for jailers 
who completed community college job related courses at county expense, 
the establishment of work or study release programs for inmates serving 
sentences, limitation on Sheriff's ability to prohibit the possession 
of certain reading materials by inmates unless they clearly came within 
the legal definition of pornography, and a requirement that the jail be 
painted with light-colored, washable enamel paint).
            (11) Sound principles of federalism require that before a 
        condition, policy, or practice at an institution be declared 
        unconstitutional, that a State exhaustion requirement be 
        respected, that more than one sitting Federal judge ought to be 
        required to hear the claim presented, and that no prison 
        condition should be enjoined before the State has a fair 
        opportunity to take remedial action.
            (12) The Attorney General possesses the expertise necessary 
        to effectively litigate systematic, institution-wide abuses on 
        behalf of a class of inmates and eliminate repetitive and often 
        frivolous in propria persona suits that unduly burden the court 
        system.
            (13) There is a need to ensure that allegations regarding 
        unconstitutional conditions of confinement are made with 
        particularity so that lawsuits may be more specifically framed 
        and particularly pled to ensure that institutional 
        administrators are given notice of the nature and extent of the 
        condition alleged to be unconstitutional.
            (14) The efforts by the Department of Justice to ensure 
        that constitutionally mandated standards for prison conditions 
        are efficiently and effectively enforced have been previously 
        recognized in the enactment of section 1997 of title 42, United 
        States Code, et seq.
    (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are:
            (1) To articulate an objective national standard for 
        measuring the minimum decency of prison conditions.
            (2) To ensure that criminal punishments reflect the 
        seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, 
        provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and 
        protect the public from further crimes by requiring, inter 
        alia, that inmates do not live better than law-abiding persons 
        living at the poverty level.
            (3) To ensure that state governments are required to spend 
        only that amount necessary to achieve the minimum standard for 
        conditions of confinement mandated by the Constitution.
            (4) To ensure that Federal courts require only that prison 
        conditions do not constitute the unnecessary and wanton 
        infliction of pain due to the deliberate indifference of 
        institutional administrators such that inmates are deprived of 
        the minimum civilized measure of life's necessities. Hudson v. 
        McMillan, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992). Wilson v. Seiter, 115 L. 
        Ed. 2d 271 (1991), Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986), and 
        Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). Helling et al. v. 
        McKinney, (United States Supreme Court, No. 91-1958, June 18, 
        1993).
            (5) To require the exhaustion of administrative remedies 
        and accompanying State judicial review prior to any Federal 
        court challenge to conditions of confinement of an institution 
        such that States are permitted a full and fair opportunity to 
        remedy unconstitutional conditions, policies, or practices.
            (6) To protect sound principles of federalism by requiring 
        that before a condition at an institution be declared 
        unconstitutional, more than one Federal judge be required to 
        hear the claim presented, and that no State condition will be 
        enjoined before the State has a fair opportunity to take 
        remedial action.
            (7) To ensure that the Federal Government is permitted an 
        opportunity to review inmate challenges to institutional 
        conditions of confinement by requiring the submission of a 
        petition requesting action pursuant to section 1997 of title 
        42, United States Code to the Attorney General of the United 
        States.
            (8) To limit the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in 
        Federal court by inmates.

SEC. 103. AMENDING SECTION 1988 OF TITLE 42, UNITED STATES CODE ET SEQ.

    Section 1988 of title 42, United States Code is amended by adding 
paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), and (l) as follows:
    ``(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this 
section, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other provision 
of law, any action challenging conditions of confinement in an 
institution filed on behalf of other inmates or as a class action must 
be brought by the Attorney General unless the requirements of section 
1997e(b) of this title have been met. Any action brought by an inmate 
in an individual capacity shall have no collateral estoppel effect 
other than as between the parties to the action. Upon declination of 
the initial intervention request by the inmate, and if requested by a 
State, the Attorney General may intervene on behalf of institutional 
administrators.
    ``(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section the court shall 
not award attorney's fees in any action challenging conditions of 
confinement of an institution, unless the litigation results in the 
issuance of an injunction under the conditions authorized in paragraph 
(j) or unless the court awards attorney's fees as a sanction for filing 
a frivolous suit pursuant to paragraph (g).
    ``(f) In any litigation challenging conditions of confinement a 
court shall not grant any relief unless the conditions challenged 
constitute the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain due to the 
deliberate indifference of institutional administrators such that 
inmates are deprived of the minimum civilized measure of life's 
necessities. If the institution makes a per inmate expenditure equal to 
or exceeding the poverty guideline level there is a presumption that 
institutional administrators are not deliberately indifferent to the 
unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and the deprivation of the 
minimum civilized measure of life's necessities which may be rebutted 
only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Failure to make 
such expenditures does not give rise to a presumption that the 
conditions of confinement of an institution are unconstitutional.
    ``(g) Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party 
represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of 
record in the attorney's individual name, whose address shall be 
stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the 
party's pleading, motion or other paper and state the party's address. 
The signature of an attorney or the party constitutes a certification 
that the signer has carefully read the pleading, motion or other paper 
and, based on a reasonable inquiry, believes all of the following:
            ``(1) It is well grounded in fact.
            ``(2) It is warranted by existing case law or there is a 
        good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal 
        of existing law.
            ``(3) It is not interposed for any improper purpose, such 
        as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase 
        in the cost of litigation.
If any pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of the 
certification provisions of this subsection, the court, on its own 
motion or the motion of the other party and after a hearing and 
appropriate findings of fact, shall impose on the signer who verified 
it, a proper sanction to deter this conduct in the future, which may 
include the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the 
pleading, motion or other paper, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
    ``(h) Any action arising under section 1983 of this title 
challenging the conditions of confinement of an institution shall be 
heard by a three judge district court empaneled pursuant to section 28 
of title 2284, United States Code.
    ``(i) No Court of the United States empaneled pursuant to section 
28 of title 2284, United States Code may issue an injunction in an 
action arising under section 1983 of title 42, United States Code 
challenging conditions of confinement of an institution absent a 
showing of extraordinary circumstances or unless institutional 
administrators have failed, after a reasonable amount of time, to 
adhere to a written declaratory judgment issued pursuant to section 
2281 of title 28, United States Code finding that a condition of 
confinement is unconstitutional.
    ``(j) Any injunctive relief granted under paragraph (i) of this 
section shall be limited to the minimum relief necessary to remedy any 
unconstitutional condition of confinement.
    ``(k) For purposes of this section, the following definitions 
apply:
            ``(1) `Poverty guideline level' means the dollar allowance 
        in the poverty guideline for additional family members in the 
        largest households, as established by the United States 
        Department of Health and Human Services.
            ``(2) `Conditions of confinement' means aspects of 
        confinement which include food, shelter, clothing, medical 
        care, goods, services, and programs of an institution, but 
        excludes aspects relating to institutional security.
            ``(3) `Institution' means an institution as defined in 
        section 1997(1)(B)(ii) of title 42, United States Code.
            ``(4) `Inmate' means a person committed to the custody of 
        an institution.
            ``(5) `Per inmate expenditure' means an institution's 
        allocated expenditure for providing food, shelter, clothing, 
        goods, services and programs, excluding costs specifically 
        related to medical care and institutional security in the 12 
        month period preceding the date of the alleged violation, 
        divided by the average number of inmates confined in the 
        institution for the same 12 month period.
    ``(l)(1) Upon motion of a party at any time, a court empaneled 
under section 1988(h) of this title may conduct a hearing on whether an 
order or decree entered as a result of any action arising under section 
1983 challenging the constitutionality of conditions of confinement, 
should be modified due to any of the following circumstances--
            ``(A) changed factual circumstances affecting the operation 
        of the order or decree, whether or not foreseeable;
            ``(B) a change or clarification of the relevant law, 
        whether or not foreseeable;
            ``(C) a succession in office of an official responsible for 
        having consented to a decree;
            ``(D) the government's financial constraints or any other 
        matter affecting public safety or the public interest; and
            ``(E) any ground provided in rule 60(b) of the Federal 
        Rules of Civil Procedure.
    ``(2) The court shall conduct such a hearing if the motion was 
filed more than one year after the date of the order or the decree or 
one year after the date on which the last modification hearing was 
conducted, whichever is later.
    ``(3) If the court denies a motion to modify an order or consent 
decree under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall make a 
written finding that the relief provided in the order or decree, as of 
the date of the decision, is no greater than the minimum required to 
bring the conditions of confinement into substantial compliance with 
the United States Constitution.''.

SEC. 104. AMENDING SECTION 1997a OF TITLE 42, UNITED STATES CODE.

    Paragraph (a) of section 1997a of title 42, United States Code is 
amended to provide as follows:
    ``(a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe 
that any State or political subdivision of a State, official, employee, 
or agent thereof, or other person acting on behalf of a State or 
political subdivision of a State is subjecting persons residing in or 
confined to an institution as defined in section 2 (42 U.S.C. 1997) to 
egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive such persons of any 
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the 
Constitution or laws of the United States causing such persons to 
suffer grievous harm, and that such deprivation is pursuant to a 
pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, 
privileges, or immunities, the Attorney General, for or in the name of 
the United States, may institute a civil action in any appropriate 
United States district court against such party for such equitable 
relief as may be appropriate to insure the minimum corrective measures 
necessary to insure the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or 
immunities, except that such equitable relief shall be available under 
this Act to persons residing in or confined to an institution as 
defined in section 1997(1)(B)(ii) of title 42, United States Code, only 
insofar as such persons are subjected to conditions which deprive them 
of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the 
Constitution of the United States, and only to the extent permitted as 
set forth in sections 1988(i) and (j) of title 42, United States Code. 
Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Attorney General from 
intervening on behalf of prison officials as set forth in section 
1988(d) of title 42, United States Code, as amended, if requested by 
the State.''.
    (b) Notwithstanding section 1997(a) of title 42, United States Code 
or section 1997c(a)(1). The Attorney General shall not initiate or 
intervene on behalf of an inmate in an action alleging a violation of 
the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution unless the 
Attorney General finds reasonable cause to believe that such persons 
are subjected to conditions which constitute the unnecessary and wanton 
infliction of pain due to the deliberate indifference of institutional 
administrators such that said persons are deprived of the minimum 
civilized measure of life's necessities.

SEC. 105. AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 1997e OF TITLE 42, UNITED STATES 
              CODE.

    Paragraph (a) of section 1997e of title 42, United States Code is 
amended to provide as follows:
    ``(a) Applicability of Administrative Remedies.--
            ``(1) In any action arising under section 1983 of this 
        title which is filed by an inmate the court shall require 
        exhaustion of the administrative remedies as described in this 
        section.''.
    (b) Any action arising under section 1983, brought by an inmate 
alleging a violation of constitutional rights relating to the 
conditions of confinement of an institution may not be maintained 
unless the inmate has--
            (1) exhausted any remedies available in the institution and 
        the courts of the State, unless it appears that there is an 
        absence of available state corrective process or that 
        circumstances exist which render such process ineffective to 
        protect the rights of the inmate, and
            (2) petitioned the Attorney General of the United States by 
        registered mail to institute an action for, or to intervene on 
        behalf of the inmate and any other prisoner similarly situated 
        and the Attorney General has not so intervened within 120 days 
        of receipt of the petition or has declined, in writing, to 
        intervene,
after which the inmate may pursue his remedy.
    (c) Notwithstanding any other statute or rule of civil procedure, 
any action arising under section 1983 of title 42, United States Code, 
challenging conditions of confinement in an institution, must state 
with particularity--
            (1) the exhaustion of remedies or reasons exhaustion has 
        not been pursued,
            (2) any applicable decision of the Attorney General under 
        subsection (a)(2)(ii) above,
            (3) the specific constitutional right alleged to have been 
        violated and all specific facts supporting the allegation,
            (4) the specific nature of the condition of confinement and 
        the manner in which the institutional administrators have been 
        deliberately indifferent to the wanton and unnecessary 
        infliction of pain such that the inmate has been deprived of 
        the minimum civilized standard of life's necessities, or
            (v) the relief requested.
    (d) An inmate shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies 
available in the courts of the State if he has the right under the law 
of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question 
presented.
    (e) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court for relief 
alleging a violation of constitutional rights arising from conditions 
of confinement of an institution, a determination after a hearing on 
the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent 
jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the inmate and the State, or an 
officer or agent thereof, were parties, evidenced by a written finding, 
written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall 
be presumed to be correct, unless the inmate shall establish or it 
shall otherwise appear, or the respondent shall admit--
            (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not 
        resolved in the State court hearing;
            (2) that the fact finding procedure employed by the State 
        court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing;
            (3) that the material facts were not adequately developed 
        at the State court hearing;
            (4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction over the 
        subject matter or over the inmate in the State court 
        proceeding;
            (5) that the inmate did not receive a full, fair, and 
        adequate hearing in the State court proceeding;
            (6) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of 
        law in the State court proceeding; or
            (7) unless that part of the record of the State court 
        proceeding in which the determination of such
        factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination of the 
        sufficiency of the evidence to support such factual 
        determination and the Federal court on a consideration of such 
        part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual 
        determinations are not fairly supported by the record;
And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the Federal court, 
when due proof of such factual determination has been made, unless the 
existence of one or more of the circumstances respectively set forth in 
paragraphs (i)-(vi) inclusive is shown by the inmate, otherwise 
appears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless the court 
concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (vii) that the record 
in the State court proceeding, considered as a whole does not fairly 
support such factual determination, the burden shall rest upon the 
inmate to establish by convincing evidence that the factual 
determination by the State court was erroneous.
    (f) If the inmate challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 
adduced in such State court proceeding to support the State court's 
determination of a factual issue made therein, the inmate shall produce 
that part of the record pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency 
of the evidence to support such determination.
    (g) A copy of the official records of the State court, duly 
certified by the clerk of such court to be true and correct copy of a 
finding, judicial opinion, or other reliable indicia showing such a 
factual determination by the State court shall be admissible in the 
Federal court proceeding.

SEC. 106. DELETING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SECTION 1994f OF TITLE 42, 
              UNITED STATES CODE.

    Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1997e, title 42, United 
States Code are deleted.

SEC. 107. ELIMINATING EARLY RELEASE OF PRISONERS--SCOPE OF JUDICIAL 
              OVERSIGHT.

    Section 4354 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
            ``(A) The following conditions shall not be deemed `cruel 
        and unusual punishment' of prisoners--
                    ``(1) the absence or failure to provide access to 
                cable TV or other entertainment to prisoners,
                    ``(2) the absence or failure to provide access to 
                recreational facilities such as basketball courts, 
                gyms, or other areas,
                    ``(3) the quality of food preparation, so long as 
                the appropriate medical official certifies that the 
                food and water meet minimal nutritional standards to 
                sustain life,
                    ``(4) the number of prison officials in a facility 
                or their training or qualifications,
                    ``(5) placement of more than one prisoner in a 
                cell,
                    ``(6) defects in the style, type or condition of 
                prison clothing,
                    ``(7) age or conditions of the prison structure, so 
                long as it remains structurally sound, or
                    ``(8) absence of any other luxury or amenity.''.

 TITLE II--REPEAL OF THE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND THE 
            BAN ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoration of Certain Second 
Amendment Rights Act''.

SEC. 202. REPEAL OF THE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND THE 
              BAN ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsections (v) and (w) and by striking the 
appendix.
    (b) Conforming Amendments and Repeal.--
            (1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking 
        paragraph (31).
            (2) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by 
        striking ``(r), (v),''.
            (3) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by striking the 
        last 2 sentences.
            (4) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
        Enforcement Act of 1994 is hereby repealed.

                   TITLE III--ENHANCED GUN PENALTIES

SEC. 301. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF USING OR CARRYING 
              A FIREARM DURING AND IN RELATION TO A FELONY.

    (a) In General.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Whoever, during and in relation to a crime that is a felony 
(including a felony which provides for an enhanced punishment if 
committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for 
which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or 
carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for 
such crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, and if the 
firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, to 
imprisonment for 10 years, and if the firearm is a machinegun or 
destructive device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm 
muffler, to imprisonment for 30 years. In the case of the second or 
subsequent conviction of the person under this subsection, the person 
shall be sentenced to life imprisonment without release. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a term of imprisonment 
imposed under this subsection shall not run concurrently with any other 
term of imprisonment including that imposed for the crime in which the 
firearm was used or carried.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended by inserting 
``(as in effect immediately before the enactment of the Gun Crime 
Control Act)'' after ``18'' the first place such term appears.

SEC. 302. MANDATORY MINIMUM SERVICE FOR UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A 
              FIREARM BY CONVICTED FELON, FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, ADDICT 
              OR UNLAWFUL USER OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, OR TRANSFEROR 
              OR RECEIVER OF STOLEN FIREARM.

    Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(6) Whoever knowingly possesses a firearm in violation of 
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 922(g), or in violation of 
subsection (i) of (j), shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place 
on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted under this 
paragraph, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under this 
paragraph run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed 
under any other provision of law.''.

SEC. 303. INCREASE IN GENERAL PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS 
              LAWS.

    Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``not more than $5,000'' and inserting 
        ``under this title''; and
            (2) by striking ``five'' and inserting ``10''.
                                 <all>
HR 322 IH----2
```