A bill relating to State regulation of access to hunting and fishing.

Mr. President, everyday more than 1,600 prisoners are released from jail and head back to the streets of America's neighborhoods and communities. That is more than 600,000 each year. When they get out, they are often get sent back to same neighborhoods where they got into trouble in the first place and more than two-thirds of them return to a life of crime.

This problem could get worse, if we don't take action. We have the largest prison population than at any other time in our history. Two million people are behind bars, the result of tougher penalties, particularly for drug offenses, and ``three-strikes and you're out laws'' in many States. While the worst offenders will stay behind bars indefinitely, 95 percent of people in jail will get out at some point in time, either on parole, or after completing their sentences.

The challenge for us and our communities is clear: we must find a way to successfully integrate offenders back into society after they get out of prison. The task is daunting. Many offenders face a unique set of personal challenges, legal restrictions, and social barriers that make the transition to productive citizenship extremely difficult for them.

Substance abuse is the most common problem. Eighty percent of all offenders abuse drugs and alcohol, or were under the influence of drugs and alcohol when they committed their crimes. Only about 13 percent of them receive treatment while they are in prison, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Spending for in-prison substance abuse programs has been cut so that States and localities can devote more funding for housing the increased number of prisoners in their corrections systems.

Drug addicted offenders face even bigger challenges when they get out. Corrections agencies are often required to return prisoners to the place where they were convicted. That means released offenders get sent back to economically distressed neighborhoods where drugs are plentiful, but hope is not. These men and women go back to face the same temptations and demons that led to their addictions and their criminal conduct. Resources for treatment in these communities are stretched thin and a lot of former inmates cannot get help.

Another important barrier to success as a citizen is poor education. Offenders are more than twice as likely to have not graduated from high school than the general population. One study found that one-third of inmates could not find an intersection on a map; the same percentage could not explain a billing error or place information on an automobile maintenance form; and only one in 20 could figure out what bus to take from using a schedule.

If you cannot use a map or read a bus schedule, you will not be able to find your way to an office in an unfamiliar part of town to interview for a entry level job as a file clerk. If you cannot explain a billing error to someone, you will not be able to get a job in customer service. There are basic-skilled jobs that do not require a college education available for ex-offenders. But too many of our offenders lack the basic skills to get these jobs and if people are not working, they are more likely to get into trouble.

Studies have shown that unemployment contributes to criminal conduct. The New York State Department of Labor found that 80 percent of offenders who violated probation or parole were unemployed.

To make matters worse, many States exclude felons from holding certain kinds of jobs and obtaining professional licenses. A felon might not be able to get a cosmetology license or certain kinds of drivers' licenses. They may also be denied housing assistance and certain kinds of welfare benefits; 15 to 27 percent of released inmates expect to go to homeless shelters when they get out.

These statistics make it clear why so many of our ex-offenders end up back in trouble with the law. Untreated substance abuse problems, poor education and job skills, and homelessness work to sap offenders of their drive, ambition, and hope. Crime seems like the only option for ex-offenders and they return to a life of crime 67 percent of the time.

Recidivism has its costs. Crime has devastating affects on the neighborhoods that see the most criminal activity. Housing an inmate for one year costs State prison systems $21,000 and costs the Federal system $25,000 per year. But the victims pay the biggest costs in pain, suffering, and fear.

I believe that we can do better than a 67 percent recidivism rate and we can reduce the amount of pain inflicted on victims if we invest in programs that help offenders get over the barriers and the personal difficulties that keep them from becoming productive citizens. Research shows that these kinds of programs can help prepare offenders for life outside of prison. According to one U.S. Department of Education study, participation in correctional vocational and education programs reduces recidivism by 29 percent in State prisoners and 33 percent for Federal prisoners. Substance abuse treatment programs can cut drug use in half and reduce recidivism by 20 percent. In fact every dollar invested in substance abuse programs saves taxpayers $7.46 in other government and social costs according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Today, I am introducing the Protecting Our Communities by Making Returning Offenders Better Citizens Act of 2004. This legislation will establish a $1.5 billion grant program at the Department of Justice to help States and communities develop comprehensive reentry strategies to turn felons into productive citizens. Funding would be available to State and local corrections and offender supervision agencies to a range of services including substance abuse treatment, basic education programs, job skills training, civic education, mentoring services, and family counseling services. The bill encourages these governmental agencies to partner with local non-profits, community organizations, and faith-based organizations to deliver these services to offenders both in and out of jail.

This legislation will also help the families of offenders when an offender returns home. Some 1.5 million children had a parent in a State or Federal prison in 1999 and 7 million children have a parent under some form of correctional supervision. These children are seven times more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. The return of an offender to the home can also produce a great deal of family strife. The adjustment can be very difficult. An unstable home environment only helps to foster criminal behavior.

My legislation will help corrections agencies institute family programs to help keep families close while a parent is incarcerated. Prisons and jails would be able to improve family visitation facilities, provide reduced cost phone service so that inmates can keep in touch with their families, or develop other innovative programs to keep family in the lives of offenders. Parole and probation agencies can work with family support agencies and other government agencies to provide a range of services so that families can successfully adjust to having an offender back home.

The experts are just beginning to examine the important role family services can play in reducing recidivism. One study found that prisoners with no visitors were six times more likely to re-enter prison within the first year of parole than those with three or more visitors.

A variety of family integration programs for offenders have also shown great promise. The La Bodega de la Familia program in New York City and the Michigan Department of Corrections's Project SEEK have produced terrific outcomes, reducing drug use and violent behavior by children. These programs offer an array of services to offenders in addition to family counseling. They serve as focal point for offenders to get substance abuse counseling, job training, and education. We need more programs like this and my legislation will make that possible.

We also need to do more to make offenders understand not only the responsibilities of citizenship, but also its benefits. Certain offenders can be denied the right to vote, public housing benefits, some welfare benefits, and they are legally barred from certain kinds of employment. What they often

do not know, however, is that they can get these rights back under certain circumstances. While we make offenders well aware of what civic rights and benefits they are denied when they get released, they do not receive information on how they can get those rights back.

In order to qualify for a grant, grantees must provide offenders with information on how they can restore their voting rights and any other rights or benefits denied them because of their criminal records. States will not have to change any laws to meet this requirement, they are only required to provide information to offenders. I believe that this will send a powerful message to released offenders that we want them to become full participants in our democracy despite their past mistakes. I believe providing information on how to restore their rights can help motivate offenders to follow a different path and underscores our willingness to give them another chance.

Our communities have done a terrific job protecting the public. The crime rate has fallen 55 percent over the last decade, the lowest level in 30 years. They have succeeded through hard work and the investment of the Federal Government in local law enforcement. We passed tougher criminal penalties, provided funding for equipment and technology, and put 100,000 community policing officers on the streets.

Keeping our streets safe is a constant battle that is far from over. These criminals are coming back. Some will be ready for the challenges of citizenship, many will not. The Federal Government can help again by providing the right resources to corrections and our parole and probation agencies. President Bush announced his support for a $300 million initiative to help offenders with job training, transitional housing, and mentoring with faith-based organizations. The President's program was an excellent start. The Protecting Our Communities by Making Returning Offenders Better Citizens Act will build on this so that every offender gets a second chance to turn themselves from felons into fellow citizens. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing.

I am pleased that Senators Ben Nelson, Conrad Burns, and Ted Stevens are joining me in sponsoring this important bill.

This is a Nevada issue, but it is also a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws.

In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non- resident hunters.

I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for State residents to hunt and fish.

That's what this legislation says--we respect that State right.

Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time.

For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours, as well as money, building ``guzzlers'' in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for Desert Bighorn Sheep.

Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for the Bighorn Sheep to survive, because many areas of their natural habitat where they used to drink water have been developed.

Today, Southern Nevada is in the 5th year of a 500 year drought, and the work of the groups I mentioned is saving the lives of hundreds of bighorns.

The involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one of the facts that justifies traditional resident/non- resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation.

The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and

this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game.

This bill is time sensitive.

This bill needs to pass before next year's hunting season begins.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today explicitly reaffirms each State's right to regulate hunting and fishing.

I am pleased that Senators Ben Nelson, Conrad Burns, and Ted Stevens are joining me in sponsoring this important bill.

This is a Nevada issue, but it is also a national issue, as a recent Federal circuit court ruling undermines traditional hunting and fishing laws.

In Conservation Force v. Dennis Manning, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that State laws that distinguish between State residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.

This threatens the conservation of wildlife resources and recreational opportunities.

Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non- resident hunters.

I respect the authority of States to enact laws to protect their legitimate interests in conserving fish and game, as well as providing opportunities for State residents to hunt and fish.

That's what this legislation says--we respect that State right.

Sportsmen are ardent conservationists. They support wildlife conservation not only through the payment of State and local taxes and other fees, but also through local non-profit conservation efforts and by volunteering their time.

For example, in Nevada there are great groups such as Nevada Bighorns Unlimited and the Fraternity of Desert Bighorn. These are dedicated sportsmen who spend countless hours, as well as money, building ``guzzlers'' in the desert, which help provide a reliable source of water for Desert Bighorn Sheep.

Without these efforts it would be extremely hard for the Bighorn Sheep to survive, because many areas of their natural habitat where they used to drink water have been developed.

Today, Southern Nevada is in the 5th year of a 500 year drought, and the work of the groups I mentioned is saving the lives of hundreds of bighorns.

The involvement of local sportsmen in protecting and conserving wildlife is one of the facts that justifies traditional resident/non- resident distinctions, and provides the motivation for our legislation.

The regulation of wildlife is traditionally within a State's purview, and

this legislation simply affirms the traditional role of States in the regulation of fish and game.

This bill is time sensitive.

This bill needs to pass before next year's hunting season begins.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to expedite passage of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.