Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, as ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I know there are a lot of problems with FEMA and the Stafford grant, but this is essentially an earmark for an improvement before FEMA has even determined whether it is going to give mitigation grant money to the State of Vermont. We need to do a lot in the way of changes with FEMA and grants and the Stafford grant monies. We know that, and we are working on that in Homeland Security. But this starts a process that sets a precedent that will be terrible. This is nothing right now but an earmark for one area, to benefit one State, when we need to make improvements in the whole process. I hope my colleagues will look at the big picture rather than the small picture, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to have regular order in the Senate. The ranking member of the committee would like to have 2 minutes before I start.

Mr. COBURN. The only thing I am chairman of, Madam President, is my dogs at home, but I thank the Presiding Officer for that misquote. At this time, I call up Coburn amendment No. 805.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. A couple of years ago I added an amendment in our deliberative process that gave Americans their constitutional rights in the U.S. National Forest. There were two main reasons I did that. No. 1, the amount of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults were rising; and No. 2, there is some confusion with the conceal and carry State laws. We have 35 or 36 States that have conceal and carry State laws, but when someone accidentally walks onto U.S. forest land, they are actually violating Federal law even though they might not know they are on State land versus Federal land. I would note that since that time the amount of crime in our national parks has declined. So since then, we now have, throughout the country, the same approach we have in national parks on the Bureau of Land Management areas, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the National Wildlife Refuge. The reason this is important for the Corps of Engineers is because after we passed those amendments, the corps proactively stated that none of this applied to them. Well, the fact is the corps has more visitors every year on their 422 lake and river projects, 11.7 million acres, 95,000 camp sites, and 6,500 miles of trails, and they have more than 370 million visitors. Corps projects are the most visited of any single Federal agency sites--even more than the 280 million annual visitors to our national parks. Americans who camp, hunt, or fish on these federally managed lands are prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights that have been guaranteed by the Supreme Court, but also are under the jurisdiction of their State laws. The purpose of this amendment is so law-abiding citizens who are granted the authority in their State will not be vulnerable to criminals or dangerous wildlife while on Army Corps land, and we, in fact, will ensure they have their rights guaranteed. This does not include an exemption for Federal facilities, Army Corps headquarters, research facilities, lock or dam buildings, or any other significant infrastructure associated with the corps. This amendment would simply require the Corps of Engineers to follow State firearm possession laws on lands and waters managed by them--the same approach the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Parks, and the National Wildlife Refuges use. It is a simple issue. This is the only area of Federal lands now where we put people in double jeopardy if they are accidentally on corps land; they are violating Federal law even though they are complying with their State laws. They are totally in compliance with the State laws, but if they step one foot onto corps land, they are violating corps regulations. This amendment makes it consistent across all government lands--we have already done it everywhere else--the corps land, which is the most visited, the most utilized lands we have in the country. It is straightforward. I am very appreciative of the chairman of this committee for her cooperation in allowing this amendment. As a matter of fact, I am so cooperative I am not going to offer the other one so I can help move her bill forward. I congratulate her on the bipartisan work she has done on her committee.

Mr. COBURN. I think this is a principled stand. The question is, Why should we not have the same policy everywhere, No. 1; and No. 2, Why would we dare deny the rights we give everywhere else on Federal Government-owned land--why would we do something different on corps land? I actually wouldn't even be offering this had the corps not proactively stated that what we passed did not apply to them. We actually intended for it to apply and, technically, they could get out. All we are saying is let's make it the same everywhere, so you can follow State law, be a good, law-abiding citizen; but if a person happens to walk onto corps land, they are violating a Federal statute according to the corps. Not on BLM lands, not on Forest Service lands, not in the Parks, but if a person walks up to a lake in Oklahoma that is run by the corps, they are violating Federal law but they are not violating State law. So we ought to have consistency with our law. This is about consistency, good government, and common sense. Wouldn't it be a tragedy--and it happens all the time--that a person is on a campsite in Oklahoma and because there is no law allowing that person to carry their weapon onto that campsite, they are vulnerable to the prey of people who are going to violate that law. That is exactly what was happening in the national parks. We were having women raped, we were having people murdered, we were having people accosted and robbed. Guess what. That has all markedly declined since we allowed gun owners to carry their guns. There has not been, to my knowledge, one case of an inappropriate use by a law-abiding citizen of their weapons in those areas. So it is common sense. My hope is we will pass this amendment and have a consistent law on all Federal lands so people can be protected under the Second Amendment, people can follow their State's law and do it adequately and accurately and be great law-abiding citizens. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, our amendment exempts the areas the chairman talked about--locks and dams. All those areas are exempt from this amendment. As ranking member on Homeland Security, I know more about these issues than probably anybody other than our chairman and the past chairman and ranking member in terms of the safety. The people the chairman talks about do not care what the law is now. They do not care what the law is. So the people about whom we are going to be worried--Boston has pretty tight laws. They did not care what the laws were. They broke multiple sets of laws, as we saw what happened in Boston. We have to prepare for that regardless of whether this amendment goes through. I would also note, in several of our national parks we have corps land where we have hydroelectric facilities and we have these things. We have not had any problem with that. What we have had is a marked decline in the number of rapes and a marked decline in the number of murders in national parks since we instituted the State laws in national parks for guns. On campgrounds we do have problems with rapes, with accosts, with assaults, with robberies; and we do have murders on corps land and campgrounds. So the point is, standardizing where you can go--I would also make the point, we only allow State law to apply. If Oklahoma law is different than California law, it is not Oklahoma law, it is whatever California law is and recognizing that individual right so we do not put people in jeopardy when they accidentally get on corps land. I understand her inhibition toward it, toward any expression of the Second Amendment generally. But the fact is we ought to have a common policy in all areas. We already do it in Bureau of Land Management, we already do it in the Forest Service, we already do it in national parks. So we should not exempt the corps. The fact is, the people who are going to violate our laws are not the law-abiding citizens. They are not the law-abiding citizens. It does not matter what we do; they are not going to pay attention to what we do. The one thing we have proven in the National Parks is, when we allowed people the ability to carry and follow their own State's law in terms of their Second Amendment, we saw rapes go down, we saw murders go down, we saw assaults go down, and we saw robberies go down in the national parks. The same thing will happen on corps land. Most of the people will not carry. Most of the people will not come in. But to deny the ability to do that, that is what this amendment is about. I will be happy to debate the Senator further. The fact is, there is a big difference in our view of what the Second Amendment should be about in this country and our trusting of law-abiding citizens to do the right things. Her issue on critical infrastructure--we are doing everything we can do to protect that now and building toward the ultimate goals of where we need to be, and this is not going to change our approach. It is not going to change it at all. So I would dispute the fact that it is going to change our approach. As we look at critical infrastructure and the protection of it, we are going to do the same whether or not this amendment passes. It is not going to have any impact on it. My hope would be that since I actually have withdrawn the other amendment we would yield back the time and move to Senator Whitehouse's amendment as soon as we can. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to get it for the Senator.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COBURN. I will get the Senator the actual statute. Federal structures are covered under another statute and I will get that statute for it. The reason we did not specifically represent that is because they are already covered. We did not exclude those structures. We said: Corps land. We did not specifically say that, and we will get you the code where Federal structures are excluded.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I do not have any intention of withdrawing the amendment. There is a Federal statute that already prohibits the carrying of firearms in Federal buildings and structures, and we will get the Senator the statute. That is very clear. We were advised by legislative counsel we did not have to put that in there because it is already prohibited. I will challenge the statement of the CRS and will give the Senator the section of the code that provides that. Again, the point is, this critical infrastructure is already being beefed up. We are going to be doing that in Homeland Security. We are doing that in Homeland Security, and it has no bearing whatsoever on the Second Amendment right to unify our policies across all government- owned land in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would yield back the remainder of my time if the chairman of the committee would do as well.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. COBURN. I wanted to spend a minute as we have had a lot of discussions over the pain that is being caused by the American traveling public and businesses on the FAA. We heard the majority leader say we couldn't do the sequester because we still have the same amount of money, and there is no way we could cut the $40 billion out of our budget over the next 6 months. I thought I would just draw a little comparison for us so we could actually see the Federal budget, and then we could make a comparison to the average family budget. Here is the Federal budget. This is last year's Federal budget. We spent $3.7 trillion, we took in $2.46 trillion, and we had a deficit of $1.32 trillion. We added to our total debt, so we have come to a total debt now of $17.57 trillion. The sequester cuts are $85 billion, and $85 billion sounds like a lot of money. Now let's compare it to the average family household in America. The median household income in America last year was $53,000. By the way, in real dollars that is less than what it was in 1989--less than what it was in 1989. If we spent money in households the way the Federal Government spends money, we would have spent $81,000. We would have only earned $53,000, but we would have spent $81,000. We would have had an annual credit card debt that we would have chalked up of $28,000 doing exactly what the Federal Government does, which would have made our total credit card debt $375,000. We are spending $81,000, and if we cut the amount of spending in the sequester as a percentage of the total Federal budget as to the median family income in America, we would have cut $182. That kind of puts it in perspective. How many families would continue to be able to operate this way? They wouldn't. No credit card company would continue to give them $28,000 worth of credit card debt. They certainly wouldn't let them run up $375,000 and then say: Oh, by the way, what are you doing about getting your finances in order? Your response would be: I have cut $182 out of my budget this next year. What we are seeing is a farce when we talk about we can't cut $44 billion or $88 billion out of the Federal budget over a year's period. It is an absolute farce. Then when you talk about the FAA, in fact, they have less controllers now than they did in 2010. If you look at the budget requested in 2013, there is about a $300 million difference between the sequester level and, actually, it is the same as in 2010. What the FAA and the administration are telling us is there is no way they can possibly do anything to associate less inconvenience and less delayed flights. Yesterday there were 6,800 flights delayed to make it hurt. I want to enter something into the Record that came up on my whistleblower site. This is an employee of the FAA and what they were told in a meeting on Monday by management. Here is what they were told. ``I hope this is the appropriate channel to contact you through.'' I am not going to say who works for the FAA and asked me to e-mail you. We want to ``let you know that the FAA management has stated in meetings that they need to make the furloughs as hard as possible for the public so that they understand how serious it is. Due to this there is management trying to make everyone take the same furlough day so that the FAA shuts down completely on that day. Union employees are supposed to be able to pick their furlough day, but are being pushed by management to take the same day as everyone else. Example, recently there was a meeting between''--and I am not going to say between which group of employees, but at the FAA, ``management, and union where the union reminded a manager that he cannot force them to take off the same day. A union employee wants Wednesdays off so another employee, under the managers orders, tried to make the union employee change his mind. When the union employee asked why, the other employee said to prove a point. I do not know if any of this information is useful or not. If it is I'' will contact you with more information. Well, the fact is, if that is really going on, that the management at FAA is trying to make union employees all take the same day off, what is that about? Is that about airline travel in America or is that trying to make the sequester hurt? Is that about $182 out of your budget and we can't even do that? We have the government's management manipulating a program so that it hurts the American public? How cynical, how un-American is that. I would ask unanimous consent to submit this e-mail for the Record.

Mr. COBURN. Here is another from an FAA supervisor: I am an air traffic control supervisor. I am writing you because I don't want to lose my job but, more importantly, I don't want to see safety across the Nation be deteriorated at the risk of the lives of aviators. Sir, I don't need to remind you about the importance of safety and would like to talk to you about what could have happened on the day OSU played OU 16 February 2013. Please call me day or night. The fact is there is a bigger story behind that, which I will make a speech on tomorrow, to actually detail what is going on. When we hear there is no risk to safety, and here is a supervisor saying there is, what are we doing? This is a contrived farce to make the American people think we can't cut $182 out of an $81,000 budget, put in simple family budget terms, or we can't cut $85 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget. When we get down and look at it in those terms, everybody in America knows it is possible to do that. Everybody knows all it takes is some common sense and the utilization of priorities that are in the best interests of the country, not the best interest of any political party or political philosophy, to actually accomplish this. I must say I am disappointed in the Department of Transportation. I am disappointed in the FAA that they would be so callous as to carry this forward. I also want to make some comments about the remarks of the majority leader 2 days ago about the tea party. I have to say I adamantly disagree. The tea party people I know from Oklahoma and the Midwest love our country. They want an effective, efficient government. They want a government that follows the Constitution. They want the rule of law to be supported all the time. He related and compared them to anarchists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Are there some crazy opinions on both sides of the extremes in both parties? You bet. But the vast majority of people in America understand over the last few years they have had to do more with less at the same time the government is doing less with more. To indict a group of people who care just as much about this country but see a different way of solving the problems, who say we should live within our means, that we shouldn't borrow against our children's future, that we should follow the Constitution, that we should follow the enumerated powers, that we should honor the Bill of Rights--that we should honor the Bill of Rights asking us to do the very things that our oath calls on us to do--to me, the fact that the majority leader would attack that group of people as a class and relate their motives to that of anarchy is very shameful. They even make the comparison, but it is also made out of ignorance. Everybody in this country wants the best in the long term. There is a difference in our view of how we get there, but there is no difference that we do have a Constitution, and it is not un-American to think we ought to honor our oath to that Constitution; that we ought to truly follow the Bill of Rights and not pass laws that abandon it; that we truly ought to embrace the enumerated powers. Over the last 3 years the GAO has shown us where $250 billion a year in waste is, and yet the Congress has done nothing. Senator Feinstein and I eliminated $6 billion a year in terms of the ethanol blenders credit. That is the only thing that has gone through in 3 years that even comes close to addressing what the GAO has recommended out of $250 billion. You can understand why people might be cynical of Washington--because we don't have our nose pointed in the right direction. We continue to pass laws that ignore the enumerated powers. One of the results of that is $250 billion of duplicative programs which have no true metrics on them. If they were all working, that would be fine. But, in fact, most aren't. I think it needs to be countered that there are a lot of disparate views in our country, but the motivation behind them is really love of country. Whether they are on the hard left or on the hard right, it is just a different path. To compare that group of people to anarchists is both insensitive, inaccurate, and outrageous. What we need in our country today is leadership that pulls us together, not leadership that divides us further. What we are seeing is just the opposite. I would ask my fellow Americans if they think on a comparative basis we couldn't cut $182 out of an $81,000 budget, if that is too much, especially since the fact that this budget has grown 89 percent in the last 10 years while their income has gone down 5 percent. Which is the better way? Should we raise your taxes and spend more of your money or should we actually decrease and eliminate tremendous amounts of wasteful, ineffective, and inefficient government spending and not sacrifice the future of our children? I don't think the answer is complicated. I think most of America would agree that we could get $182 out of $81,000. That is the comparative ratio of $85 billion out of $3.7 trillion and what we heard the majority leader say that is impossible to do. It is only impossible to do this because we don't want to do it. I have spent 8 years outlining waste in the Federal Government. Very few of my colleagues have helped eliminate that waste. The reason is they are double minded. In their hearts they want the best for the country, but they also want to get reelected. Every one of those duplicative, wasteful programs has a constituency. So parochialism trumps patriotism in the Senate. That is the only explanation for why we haven't addressed what the GAO has plainly said is duplication, waste, and actual stupidity. When we have over 100 job training programs, 47 for the nondisabled, and all but 3 of them do exactly the same thing, and most of those do not have a metric--in fact, none of them have a metric to say whether they are effective--and we will not reform it, we are saying we do not care; we cannot cut $182. When we have 110 teacher training programs, and none of those has a metric, across 9 different agencies, not in the Department of Education, and none of those has a metric. We spend about $4 billion a year on them, and we do not know if they are effective and we will not conform them into 1, even if it is a role for the Federal Government, or into 2, and eliminate and get some consolidated savings, what we are saying is we cannot cut $182 out of an $81,000 budget. You see, the problems are not insolvable. There is no attempt being made to solve them. So we get a choice, America gets a choice: Continue to operate as we are, and what we are actually going to do is put handcuffs on our children and shackle their legs and take away the opportunity of a life equal to ours. We are stealing that from them. When we have the majority leader of the Senate say it is impossible for us to cut $182 out of an $81,000 budget, what we are saying is our priorities are wrong. I can go through the list. We have 204 science, technology, engineering, and math programs. Twenty-one different agencies run those. Half of them are at the Defense Department. None of them has a metric to see if they are working. They are well intended. Why do we have 204 science and technology programs? Nobody can answer that question. We just have them because somebody saw a need but did not look to see what we were already doing or make what we were already doing work. It is not rocket science. It is common sense. There is not a thimbleful of it in Washington. There is not a thimbleful of common sense in Washington; otherwise, we would be addressing these programs. We would not have a statement saying there is no way we can cut $85 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget. America does not believe that. Now we have sequester and a refusal by the administration to even accept flexibility if we were to grant it, or any request for reprogramming to make it better for the American people. What we have is a political stunt by the FAA that not only inconveniences travelers but puts people at risk, markedly affects business, and changes people's lives. When you think about those people who are not going to make the funeral of one of their loved ones because of this stunt or are not going to be at a graduation because of this stunt or the airlines and the significant losses they are incurring every day because of this stunt, you have got to ask: Who in the world is leading this country and where did they get their motivation? It is an embarrassment. The fact is the Senate has not acted in the best interests of the country in the long term, and what we have denied--the fact is we cannot cut $182 out of an $81,000 budget. We cannot do that; it is too hard. But nobody in America believes that. Nobody believes it. So what we do is call up all of the heart-wrenching things we can to say how terrible it is but do not talk about the real fact that we are living way outside of our means. We are living on the backs of our children. Every day we are stealing their future and we refuse to admit to the very real concept that that is morally wrong. It is especially morally wrong when we, if we did our jobs properly, would not be doing it. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand there are going to be objections to amendments, but I am going to offer them anyway and let people object. One of the ways the Senate is running now is that we have spent 3 days doing nothing, so I am going to talk about my amendments. If they get objected to, fine. But the fact is the American people should know what we are doing rather than spending all our time in quorum calls. So I will be calling up several amendments. If they are objected to, I will spend the time talking about those amendments. I have no intention of losing the floor until I have finished calling up all my amendments and talking about each of them. I just gave a talk on the tremendous waste that is in this government, but there is a lot of other waste and ways to solve it. Most of these amendments have bipartisan sponsors or have had in the past, and they are about good government. I understand there will be objections, and that is fine. Members can defend the objection and the fact that there are not going to be any amendments on the bill, but I am going to offer mine anyway. The first amendment I would like to call up is amendment No. 753 and I ask unanimous consent for its consideration.

Mr. COBURN. I will discuss amendment No. 753, and I appreciate the objection by the Senator from Illinois to that amendment. We have over $4 billion owed to the Federal Government by Federal employees in past due taxes. I am not talking about taxes that have been adjudicated or settled or that have been worked out. I am talking about taxes owed today that haven't been paid. The Federal Government has the ability to garnish those wages, but they will not. The way we get rid of a $1 trillion deficit is $1 billion at a time. On active Federal employees right now there is $1.1 billion in tax arrears and $2.2 billion from retired. That is undisputed. I am not talking about disputed. This is undisputed and hasn't been paid. So if there is an agreement that has been worked out, if they are working it out, that is fine, this amendment does nothing. We are laying off people at the FAA. A portion of these people at the FAA, whether it be in communications or a secretary or whatever, owes the Federal Government thousands of dollars, but we are asking somebody else to take a furlough day rather than either terminating this other individual or garnishing their wages. Something is wrong with that picture. This amendment says we are going to do that. We are going to actually enforce the rule of law and we will apply it equally to Federal employees as we apply it to everybody else in this country. This will save, over the next 2 to 3 years, about $3 billion. Yet I can't bring up this amendment. I understand the dynamics that are ongoing. I have no personal animosity toward Senator Baucus or Senator Durbin for objecting to the amendment. I know what is happening. But the fact is we can't bring up an amendment to save us $3 billion. The Marketplace Fairness Act is going to pass this body. Everybody knows that. But what we can't do is the regular work of the American people and we can't get a vote on an amendment that would actually save us $3 billion.

Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. COBURN. I understand that, but I think this amendment has no technical problem because it does not raise new revenues. It is simply a direction for performance of the Federal Government, which is the marketplace fairness. We are directing what will happen to the States and the involvement of the Federal Government in it. So there may very well be a blue-slip problem with some of the others, but I don't think there is with this one. The point is here we sit. I just gave a speech saying it is $182 out of a $81,000 budget we say we can't cut. That is the equivalent family situation I just lined up here, and here is a way to get $3.2 billion that is owed and due back into the Federal coffers and we are not going to allow it. So we could allow the amendment and then table it. The fact is we don't want to do that either. In talking to my House colleagues, it is going to be a while, if ever, if this bill actually sees the light of day. So we ought to be voting on the things that will actually make a difference. I don't disagree it is unfair on the Marketplace Fairness Act. I think the exclusion level is way too low for any business to be able to afford to comply with it, but that is another story. The very fact is we are not doing what we could do to collect the revenue we are due now. This is an example of just saying: Start enforcing the law. Start using the tools at hand at the Treasury and the different agencies. Yet we are not going to get to vote on that. We ought to vote. If they want to table it, fine, but not to allow an amendment to come up? We are not postcloture, but we are not allowing an amendment, which means I don't have the right to modify a bill or even have a vote on modifying the bill. I understand what is going on, but I think that is a significant amendment. Most Americans don't know Federal employees who are actively working today owe that kind of money to the Federal Government. Yet nothing is being done about it and no consequence for not paying. I guarantee if you are out there and you are not paying, you are feeling the full force of the IRS. I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 751 and set aside the pending amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Can I actually have it read and then the Senator from Illinois object after having it read?

Mr. COBURN. All right. Let me explain a minute, and the Senator can object ahead of time or later. It doesn't matter when.

Mr. COBURN. This is an amendment to require a report from the Treasury Department on the abuse of tax-exempt status by charitable organizations. What we have seen in studies by the GAO and the IG is that many professional athletes set up charitable organizations and then use them inappropriately to pay the expenses of their lives. All we are asking from the IRS is to take a good look at this. Let's not allow this aspect of a very well-intended tax law to be utilized to skirt expenses and taxes. On March 31, 2015, ESPN investigative unit ``Outside the Lines'' released the findings of an in-depth look at 115 different charitable organizations founded by prominent athletes. They gave extensive details of that investigation. What they outlined was that 74 percent of these nonprofits fell short of one or more of the acceptable guidelines for nonprofit operating standards. That means they are operating outside the law or do not meet the requirements for a charitable organization. Yet nothing has been done about it. Here again they are asking for oversight, asking for us to do the right thing, asking us to get the money that is actually due the Federal Government. We are not going to get a vote on it. We are not going to have an ability to vote on it. We are not going to direct the IRS to actually do that and actually recapture some of the money that is actually due to the Federal Government. All it is is a study: Tell us how bad this problem is and what you are going to do about it. How are you going to fix it? But, no, we are not going to do that. We are going to continue to allow the process to go on so that some of the most wealthy people in our country continue to pay less taxes than what they owe because Congress is dysfunctional. I am not going into the individuals who were named in the ESPN story. I think it created quite a stir in the media. Yet we have seen no action either in the House or the Senate in this area. All we are asking with this amendment is the number of charitable organizations that existed 10 years ago; the number that had their tax-exempt status revoked each year since 2007; the number and nature of the allegations of the problems made to the Internal Revenue Service with respect to charitable organizations that were founded in this area of expertise for charitable organizations and what the IRS has done about it over the last 6 years; a description of the challenges the Internal Revenue Service faces in trying to enforce and oversee such organizations; the number of criminal investigations of charitable organizations conducted by the IRS since 2010--in other words, what are you doing about the problem--and then finally an explanation of any problems the Internal Revenue Service has had with the U.S. attorneys in prosecuting criminal violations of tax-exempt and charitable organizations.

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.