mr. chairman , i rise in opposition to the amendment . 
mr. chairman , this amendment deletes the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for a sex offender who crosses state lines to fail to register in the new state and also deletes the 5-year mandatory minimum for making false statements in a sexual abuse investigation . 
let me say that the whole issue of the sentencing guidelines has been a very vexatious one . 
earlier this year , the supreme court decided two cases that made the sentencing guidelines only advisory , rather than mandatory . 
so if this amendment is adopted , judges will be given the power to place on probation those who were convicted of not registering in a new state or making a false statement to law enforcement relative to a sexual abuse investigation . 
i do not think that probation is advisable in these instances , and that is why this amendment should be defeated . 
the most significant enforcement issue that exists today in the sex offender program is that over 100 , 000 sex offenders , or nearly one-fifth in the nation , are `` missing , '' meaning they have not complied with the sex offender registration requirements . 
this typically occurs when the sex offenders move from one state to another . 
to ensure compliance with the registration requirements , states are required to inform the sex offender of his or her obligations and obtain a signed form indicating he or she understands those obligations and will comply with them . 
in order to address the problem of the missing sex offenders , that is , those who fail to comply with moving from one state to another , sex offenders will now face federal prosecution with a mandatory minimum of 5 years . 
the combination of incentives for the sex offender to comply and stiff criminal penalties and additional law enforcement resources to focus on this problem should help address the overwhelming number of noncomplying or `` missing '' sex offenders in our community . 
the 5-year mandatory minimum penalty is a critical component of this new enforcement scheme , and this amendment punches a hole in that enforcement scheme and allows a loophole to have the current situation continue to fester . 
the mandatory minimum applies for a knowing violation that will help ensure that sex offenders comply with all registration requirements . 
never again should our communities have to suffer from the fear of unidentified sex offenders in their communities , their schools , and their youth organizations . 
similarly , the 5-year mandatory minimum for false statements made during a sexual abuse investigation is critical . 
the facts surrounding the jessica lunsford case in florida demonstrate that time is of the essence and false statements can make the difference between life and death of a missing child . 
in the lunsford case , three witnesses knew that john couey , the alleged rapist and murderer of 9-year-old jessica lunsford , was living within 150 yards of jessica 's house but failed to tell investigators . 
if they had told the truth , maybe , just maybe , jessica lunsford would be alive today . 
a 5-year mandatory minimum penalty would ensure truthful and full cooperation by witnesses in such investigations . 
it is an important policy goal , and these penalties send a strong deterrent message . 
i strongly urge opposition to this amendment . 
