mr. chairman , i yield myself such time as i may consume . 
mr. chairman , this amendment eliminates the mandatory minimum sentences in the bill and replaces them with increases in maximum sentences for which a defendant can be sentenced . 
this is not a soft-on-crime amendment but a sensible-on-crime amendment . 
in each instance in which it eliminates a mandatory minimum sentence , it raises the maximum term to which an offender can be sentenced , except in situations where they can already get life . 
with the higher maximums , offenders who deserve it can be sentenced to even greater sentences than the bill allows . 
but those who are bit players in an offense or those who do not deserve as much time as ringleaders , do not have to be sentenced to that time anyway . 
what sense does it make to sentence an offender to more time than anyone believes they deserve ? 
that is an inevitable result of mandatory minimum sentencing . 
the notion that we have to have mandatory minimum sentences to force judges to sentence those who kill , injure or threaten judges or their families or others associated with the courts is obviously absurd . 
judges have not asked for mandatory minimum sentences as a protection for themselves and their families . 
indeed , they have asked for just the opposite . 
having the experience of sentencing people on an ongoing basis , judges see the differences in activities , roles , backgrounds of the offenders of crime . 
they know it makes no sense to sentence just on the basis of the name of the crime rather than on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the crime and the level of involvement and background of the offenders . 
having heard all the facts and circumstances in the case , they are in a much better position to sentence offenders than congress is in sentencing offenders with no knowledge of the individual case . 
to ensure a systemic approach in sentencing like offenders in a similar manner , we have created the sentencing commission and the sentencing guideline system . 
by increasing the maximums , we signal to the sentencing commission to consider increasing the guideline minimums , which they characteristically do when we make such suggestions . 
the sentencing statistics do not establish that the courts have not followed the guidelines , especially when you take into account that most of the deviations result from government motions , or acquiescences in sentences , and guideline-sanctioned departures . 
sentencing is not an exact science and should not be held to rigid statistical measurements . 
some have suggested that mandatory minimum sentencing is necessary because of recent supreme court decisions that prevent sentencing increases based on factors not established at the trial . 
yet , their positions on mandatory minimum sentences appear to be no different before those cases were decided . 
mandatory minimums have been studied and have been found to disrupt an orderly sentencing scheme , to be discriminatory against minorities , to waste the taxpayers ' money when compared to traditional sentencing where individual roles and culpability can be taken into account . 
if we do not trust judges to sentence offenders sufficient in other cases , the one instance where we should be able to trust judges is in the case where the charge is murder , injury , or threats to judges . 
certainly , mr. chairman , mandatory minimums are not indicated in this bill , so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and remove the mandatory minimums from the bill . 
mr. chairman , i yield back the balance of my time . 
