mr. chairman , i rise in support of the bill , but hopeful that we can make it even a little bit better . 
the thrust of the bill is clearly a good idea . 
we need a national registration for sex offenders . 
we need to make it with teeth , and that is why i support the underlying bill . 
there is , however , this issue of mandatory minimums in the bill . 
i am a member of the committee on the judiciary , and i have said there that i am more uncomfortable than ever with our use of mandatory minimums . 
we have a coherent system of sentencing called the sentencing guidelines . 
we have people who thought very carefully about how it would be that rape , for example , would compare with bank robbery and how that would compare with cashing bad checks , and so they came up with a system . 
into that system have come some reactions from congress to particularly heinous crimes . 
the result is sort of a patchwork of mandatory minimums that disrupt the coherent system established by the sentencing guidelines . 
so here today we have a bill before us that has a particularly dangerous mandatory minimum when it comes to the situation of someone failing to register . 
now , i think it is pretty confusing when you move from state to state . 
in fact , it is quite often the case that you send your possessions on ahead in a moving van ; and the question is when did you move from california to ohio , was it when the moving van got there , or was it when you took the first flight from california to ohio , but then you returned to california to get the rest of your possessions and drove back . 
when did you move to ohio ? 
under this bill as it is right now , if you fail to register , you have a mandatory minimum . 
i think the mandatory minimum in this case is particularly inappropriate . 
in fact , mr. chairman , it is a 5-year mandatory minimum . 
so the hypothetical i just posed of somebody moving from california to ohio , the moving truck is there , they fly out twice to ohio , and finally they are moved , if they do not register in a timely fashion , and it is a very brief time they have to register , then what happens is they must go off to jail for 5 years . 
this is somebody who has not committed another offense . 
if they commit another offense , there are mandatory minimums that handle that . 
this is a failing to register , which is an important thing . 
it is very important that we register , but it seems to me that this is a classic case of where we should give judges discretion within the sentencing guidelines to deal with exactly the hypothetical i have just described . 
let the judge decide , well , the person actually did move to ohio on that second trip and when they moved , they failed to register . 
but maybe they had an appendectomy . 
if they did , give them some time , give them some grace because they were clearly attempting to comply with the law . 
on the other hand , the judge could hear this person was not attempting to comply with the law . 
they were flouting the layout ; and if they were , he gives them some time . 
the amendment here would simply strike the 5-year minimum and make it so that it could be up to a maximum of 20 years . 
so a judge could still send the flagrant violator , the person who has failed to register , off to jail for a good long time because registration is crucial to the underlying nature of this bill . 
so i support the bill , and i hope that we can improve it by eliminating what could be manifest injustice with a mandatory minimum that is unchangeable by a judge , a judge who can see the circumstances . 
of course that requires some trust in the judges , but i am thinking we can do that . 
at least in south carolina , we have good judges , judges who make decisions that seem to be consistent with the spirit of this law . 
if jurisdictions have judges who do not do that , perhaps there should be some pressure brought to bear on these judges and , in fact , impeachments if those judges consistently violate the sentencing guidelines . 
but let us let the system work ; let us let the constitution work and respect the judiciary and respect the competence of the people that the u.s. senate confirms . 
we have a confirmation hearing going on right now where we are confirming , i hope , somebody who is clearly a capable jurist . 
when he is on that court , we should defer to him because he is a coequal branch of the federal government . 
so my amendment is very simple . 
it strikes the mandatory minimum in the case of failing to register . 
i hope my colleagues will support it . 
