HR 322 IH
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 correc-
tional 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 condi-
tions 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 Con-
stitution.
(8) There is a need for the Congress, on behalf
of the people, to express and codify a national stand-
HR 322 IH
ard of minimum decency for prison conditions. In-
mates should not be entitled, by virtue of their im-
prisonment, to live better than law-abiding persons
living at the poverty guideline level of income as de-
termined by the Department of Health and Human
Services.
(9) Federal courts have been besieged by frivo-
lous litigation brought by inmates incarcerated in in-
stitutions. Lacking a legislative expression of the
contemporary standards of decency relating to pris-
on conditions, Federal courts have become unduly
involved in the micromanagement of correctional fa-
cilities, 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 administer-
HR 322 IH
ing 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 admin-
istrators hire a food service supervisor with a mini-
mum 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 in-
creases for jailers who completed community college
job related courses at county expense, the establish-
ment 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 institu-
tion be declared unconstitutional, that a State ex-
HR 322 IH
haustion requirement be respected, that more than
one sitting Federal judge ought to be required to
hear the claim presented, and that no prison condi-
tion should be enjoined before the State has a fair
opportunity to take remedial action.
(12) The Attorney General possesses the exper-
tise necessary to effectively litigate systematic, insti-
tution-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 en-
sure that institutional administrators are given no-
tice 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 en-
actment of section 1997 of title 42, United States
Code, et seq.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are:
HR 322 IH
(1) To articulate an objective national standard
for measuring the minimum decency of prison condi-
tions.
(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 re-
quired to spend only that amount necessary to
achieve the minimum standard for conditions of con-
finement mandated by the Constitution.
(4) To ensure that Federal courts require only
that prison conditions do not constitute the unneces-
sary and wanton infliction of pain due to the delib-
erate indifference of institutional administrators
such that inmates are deprived of the minimum civ-
ilized measure of life’s necessities. Hudson v. McMil-
lan, 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
HR 322 IH
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 un-
constitutional 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 chal-
lenges to institutional conditions of confinement by
requiring the submission of a petition requesting ac-
tion 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.
HR 322 IH
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 condi-
tions 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 collat-
eral estoppel effect other than as between the parties to
the action. Upon declination of the initial intervention re-
quest by the inmate, and if requested by a State, the At-
torney General may intervene on behalf of institutional ad-
ministrators.
‘‘(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 injunc-
tion 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).
HR 322 IH
‘‘(f) In any litigation challenging conditions of con-
finement a court shall not grant any relief unless the con-
ditions challenged constitute the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain due to the deliberate indifference of insti-
tutional 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 ex-
ceeding the poverty guideline level there is a presumption
that institutional administrators are not deliberately indif-
ferent 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 unconstitu-
tional.
‘‘(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 certifi-
cation that the signer has carefully read the pleading, mo-
HR 322 IH
tion 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 pur-
pose, 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 viola-
tion 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 insti-
tution 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 pursu-
ant to section 28 of title 2284, United States Code may
HR 322 IH
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 extraor-
dinary circumstances or unless institutional administra-
tors have failed, after a reasonable amount of time, to ad-
here 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 nec-
essary to remedy any unconstitutional condition of con-
finement.
‘‘(k) For purposes of this section, the following defini-
tions apply:
‘‘(1) ‘Poverty guideline level’ means the dollar
allowance in the poverty guideline for additional
family members in the largest households, as estab-
lished 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 in-
stitution, but excludes aspects relating to institu-
tional security.
HR 322 IH
‘‘(3) ‘Institution’ means an institution as de-
fined 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 institu-
tion’s allocated expenditure for providing food, shel-
ter, clothing, goods, services and programs, exclud-
ing costs specifically related to medical care and in-
stitutional security in the 12 month period preceding
the date of the alleged violation, divided by the aver-
age 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 re-
sult 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;
HR 322 IH
‘‘(C) a succession in office of an official respon-
sible for having consented to a decree;
‘‘(D) the government’s financial constraints or
any other matter affecting public safety or the pub-
lic 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 condi-
tions 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
HR 322 IH
a State, official, employee, or agent thereof, or other per-
son 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 per-
sons 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 in-
sure the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immu-
nities, 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 sub-
jected to conditions which deprive them of rights, privi-
leges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitu-
tion 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 At-
HR 322 IH
torney General from intervening on behalf of prison offi-
cials 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 in-
mate in an action alleging a violation of the eighth amend-
ment of the United States Constitution unless the Attor-
ney 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 delib-
erate indifference of institutional administrators such that
said persons are deprived of the minimum civilized meas-
ure 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
REM-
EDIES.—
‘‘(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 rem-
edies as described in this section.’’.
HR 322 IH
(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 in-
stitution and the courts of the State, unless it ap-
pears that there is an absence of available state cor-
rective 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 Unit-
ed 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 re-
ceipt 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 confine-
ment in an institution, must state with particularity—
(1) the exhaustion of remedies or reasons ex-
haustion has not been pursued,
HR 322 IH
(2) any applicable decision of the Attorney Gen-
eral 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 con-
finement 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 avail-
able procedure, the question presented.
(e) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court
for relief alleging a violation of constitutional rights aris-
ing from conditions of confinement of an institution, a de-
termination 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 writ-
ten finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate
written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct, unless the
HR 322 IH
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;
HR 322 IH
And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the
Federal court, when due proof of such factual determina-
tion 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 ap-
pears, 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, consid-
ered as a whole does not fairly support such factual deter-
mination, the burden shall rest upon the inmate to estab-
lish by convincing evidence that the factual determination
by the State court was erroneous.
(f) If the inmate challenges the sufficiency of the evi-
dence 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 evi-
dence 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.
HR 322 IH
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 pris-
oners—
‘‘(1) the absence or failure to provide ac-
cess to cable TV or other entertainment to pris-
oners,
‘‘(2) the absence or failure to provide ac-
cess 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 nutri-
tional standards to sustain life,
‘‘(4) the number of prison officials in a fa-
cility or their training or qualifications,
‘‘(5) placement of more than one prisoner
in a cell,
HR 322 IH
‘‘(6) defects in the style, type or condition
of prison clothing,
‘‘(7) age or conditions of the prison struc-
ture, so long as it remains structurally sound,
or
‘‘(8) absence of any other luxury or amen-
ity.’’.
TITLE II—REPEAL OF THE BAN ON SEMI-
AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND
THE BAN ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMU-
NITION 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 AS-
SAULT 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 amend-
ed by striking ‘‘(r), (v),’’.
HR 322 IH
(3) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by
striking the last 2 sentences.
(4) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Con-
trol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is hereby re-
pealed.
TITLE III—ENHANCED GUN PENALTIES
SEC. 301. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR PERSONS CON-
VICTED 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 en-
hanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly
or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be pros-
ecuted 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 convic-
tion of the person under this subsection, the person shall
be sentenced to life imprisonment without release. Not-
HR 322 IH
withstanding any other provision of law, a term of impris-
onment imposed under this subsection shall not run con-
currently 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 imme-
diately 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 
SUB-
STANCE, 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 viola-
tion 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 para-
graph, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under
HR 322 IH
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 in-
serting ‘‘under this title’’; and
(2) by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’.
Æ
HR 322 IH——2