mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
during the last few minutes , we have heard a lot of praise of mandatory minimums . 
i just want to remind the house that the judicial conference writes us frequently and reminds us that mandatory minimums violate common sense . 
that is because if the offense requires the mandatory minimum and that makes common sense , it can be applied ; but if it makes no sense , mandatory minimums require us to impose that sentence anyway . 
many of the provisions of the bill are crimes which we do not think would be subject to 5- or 10-year mandatory minimums . 
there is a provision in the bill that says that felonious assaults against a juvenile , which could be two juveniles having a fist fight in the school yard , if it gets into a big fight , that that is a 10-year mandatory minimum if no injury occurs . 
now , of course , if an injury occurs in the fight , then you are talking about 20 years . 
i think common sense should prevail and a more appropriate sentence could be given . 
this entire registration program that requires people to register has not been shown to reduce the incidence of child molestation . 
for someone who commits a crime , even as a juvenile , they will be subject to lifetime registration . 
there is no suggestion and there is no evidence that that reduces crime . 
it may actually increase crime . 
we know that 90 percent of the offenses against children were people that would not be covered by the legislation , and 3.3 percent of those covered by the legislation might offend . 
we have other ways of dealing with that in such a way that we can actually reduce that 3.3 as much as 50 percent . 
we ought to be focused on that . 
mr. chairman , we need to focus on the things that will actually reduce crime . 
this bill , many of the provisions of it , obviously , do not ; and i would hope that we would focus appropriately to actually protect the children . 
