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 .  