immigrant in the trump era. political reporter with her book the view from flyover country. dispatches from the forgotten america. on sunday, our live coverage continues at 1:30 p.m. eastern with journalist david corn and his book russian roulette. the inside story of putin's war on america and the election of donald trump. coauthored by michael isa cof. black matters patrice with her book when they call i a terrorist, i black lives matter m memoir. and roger simon with i know best how moral narcissism is destroying our country. if it hasn't already. l.a. festival of books live on c-span 2's book tv. the congressional budget office is forecasting that the budget deficit will surpass $1 trillion by the year 2020 and that eight years later the total deficit debt will be as large as

the entire u.s. economy. keith hall testified before the budget committee last week about those numbers. wyoming senator mike enzi chairs the committee. good morning and welcome to our hearing on cbo's budget and economic outlook for fiscal years 2018 through 2028.

dr. hall, thank you for this report. as you know, this update was delayed from its normal release in january due to congressional activity at the end of last year. i appreciate cbo's dedication to integrating into the final product analysis of last december's tax cuts and jobs act as well as the 2018 bipartisan budget act and the omnibus appropriations bill. it's vital that this committee have the most up to date information in order to understand the fiscal impact of the policies being implemented. this year's reported, like so many before it, shines a spotlight on our country's unsustainable fiscal outlook. automatic spend prague grams like social security and medicare are growing disproportionately to the revenue and outpacing the economy. consider this. automatic spending will soon consume all the taxes and revenues the federal government collects and that's before $1

goes to providing for our national defense and other priorities funded through so-called discretionary spending as part of the annual appropriations process. and, 70% of the total increase in outlays over the next ten years is from social security, medicare, and net interest on america's debt. congress must come to terms with this overspending. our government makes promises to pay for those programs without identifying a source of funding 10 to sure their sustainability. dedicated taxes and fees are currently paying for less than half of the total mandatory spending. to really address this fiscal imbalance, we can either reduce spending or increase our projected economic growth, but preferably some combination of the two. the tax act was a good step towards growing our economy. it's producing higher wages, more dollars in worker's paychecks and increased domestic

vefl e splechbt. and while we may have disagreements over the extent of its impact on the economy, both the joint committee on taxation and cbo have confirmed that it will have a positive impact on gdp growth. it continues to work on setting a pro growth legislative path for the upcoming year. part of that has to be the process by which congress budgets. question not continue to make last-minute deals that only add to our debt and ignore the structural policy changes need toward long-term sustainability or to spend money from the end of the ten-year period in the first year. the threat of a government shutdown should not be used to increase spending but unfortunately since the 2011 failure of the joint select committee on deficit reduction that was created by the budget control act, we've seen this outcome time and again. most recently culminating in the bipartisan budget act of 2018. this new law raised the caps on regular discretionary spending

by 296 billion over fiscal years 2018 to '19. cbo estimates that if appropriations were to grow at the rate of inflation after 2018, rather than returning to budget control acts lower caps, discretionary spending would be 1.7 higher in ten years than the cbo's baseline. we vin colluding automatic continuing resolutions and by annual budgeting. senator cotton has propose eliminating the budget controls act discretionary caps tend to what he calls the bust and boom budget cycle. we need to reform our budget and appropriations process to end the specter of government shutdowns that lead to overspending. truth is that annual appropriations make up just a fraction of our total spending. to really address underlying problems, we need more time and effort put toward oversight and

reducing the rate of growth of mandatory spending. congress needs to focus more on addressing these autopilot programs in order to make them for effective and eliminate duplication. we need to set long term goals to ensure a sustainable debt to gdp ratio so our overspending does not ultimately bankrupt the country. the continual growth is something this committee and congress needs to address. a baltd budget is the best outcome but as the president's fiscal year 2019 budget shows, it's getting harder and harder to introduce. while the correct debt to gdp goal is debatable, i think we can all agree this report's projected path approaching 100% over the next ten years is not a good outcome. dr. hall, i look forward to your thoughts on what actions congress could take to foster a

stronger u.s. economy and reduce spending. senator ansanders. >> thank you, mr. chairman and dr. hall thank you very much for being with us again. mr. chairman, over and over again trump and his administration and many of my republican colleagues have made the claim that the tax plan that was passed that gave massive tax breaks to the richest people in this country would pay magically for itself. on september 28th, secretary mnuchin, treasury secretary said, quote, not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt, end quote. on october 22nd, president trump said this about his tax plan, quote, if we pick up one point on gdp, that's 2.5 trillion, it's more -- it more than pays for everything, end of quote. on december 4th senate majority leader mcconnell said, quote, i

not only don't think the tax bill will increase the deficit, i think it will be -- it will be beyond revenue neutral. in other words, i think it will introduce more than enough to fill that gap, end of quote. and mr. chairman, on december nine teethth y -- 19th, you sai quote, i am tired of the accusation the republican budget hawks, and that includes me, ieu are are willing to throw in the towel and accept a trillion and a half deficit over the next ten years. i'm still a deficit hawk and thai that's why claims to the country that this tax bill will go unpaid for baseline and i complete analysis of the baseline. fair quote? >> fair quote have some mr. chairman, the results are in and the nonpartisan experts tell us that not only will the trump tax plan not pay for itself, it will add nearly 1.9 trillion to the

federal deficit over the next 11 years even after taking economic growth into account. and the trump tax cut is not the only republican policy that has increased the deficit in the national debt over the past 17 years. there are -- was massive increases in military spending that have added to the problems. so here we are, and this is a point, mr. chairman, that i want to make. when we talk about the government we got to talk about the american people, not just the government. we got to talk about a declining middle class, we got to talk about 40 million people living in poverty. we have to talk about the massive level of income and wealth and i equality that exists in america. you just talked about it, if may say, in really about the necessity, in your view, about cutting social security and medicare. and i think that that is a very,

very wrong idea. when you got millions of seniors in vermont, wyoming, and all over this country trying to get by on fwe12,000, 13,000, $14,00 year, what we should not be doing is giving unbelievable tax breaks to billionaires and say we got to cut social security or healthcare benefits from the seniors in this country. so i think when we talk about the budget, we have to talk about it in the broader context of what is happening in america. and what is happening in america is we're seeing a massive increase in income and wealth and equality. do anybody here want to defend the fact that three people in america now own more wealth than the bottom half of the american people? do we want to defend the reality that a very significant amount of new incomed it is going to the top 1%? so our job is to create an economy that works for all of

us. and you don't do that, as the president proposed, by a trillion dollar cut in medicaid, $500 billion cut in medicare put don't do that by cutting social sure security. what you to do is say to the wealthiest people in this kwhount in many ways have never had it so good put recognize that income and wealth and equality is worse today than any time since the 1920s put say to those people, start paying your fair share of taxes. and maybe we also want to -- may want to think about why we are expanding increasing military spending by 165 billion over the next two years when you have veterans in this country sleeping out on the street. so, mr. president, bottom line is, mr. chairman, the president's tax plan is not going to lower the deficit, according to the cbo, it's going to increase the deficit and the time is long overdue for us to get our priorities right, stop

protecting working families in the middle class, not just wealthy campaign contributors. thank you. >> thank you. and i appreciate you quoting me. but later when you said that i said cut medicare and social security, i have never said cut them. >> okay. then what did you mean when you talked about entitlement programs? you talked about those programs. what do you mean by that? >> i think you missed the part about some of the duplication and effectiveness of making those programs. i did not rule out ann crease in the revenues for them. something has to be done, it needs to be a combinationing is what i said. >> all right. if i misquoted you then i'm sorry. but some of your colleagues especially in the house have talked about cuts to social security and medicare. >> thank you.

>> our witness this morning is dr. keith hall, the director of the congressional budget office. earlier this year he 'pierd before this committee to discuss cbo's work and his efforts to increase responsiveness and transparentsy at the agency. he will be talking about the latest projections and the challenges we face as a nation. we look forward to receiving your testimony. for the information of colleagues, dr. hall will take up to about seven minutes for his opening statement fold lowe by questions. you may begin. >> members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the congressional budget office's most recent analysis of the outlook for the budget and the economy.

my statement summarizes cbo's new baseline budget projections and economic forecast which the agency released on monday. in the congressional budget office's baseline projections which incorporate the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending generally remains unchanged, the federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next few years. later on between 2023 and 2028 it stabilizes in relation to the size of the economy, though at a high level. as a result, federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the coming decade approaching 100% of gross domestic product by 2028. projected deficits over the 2018 to 2027 period have increased markedly since we issued our last budget in economic projections in june of 2017. the increase stems primarily from tax and spending legislation enacted since then, especially the 2017 tax act, the

bipartisan budget act of 2018, and the consolidated appropriations act of 2018. in our economic projections which underlie our budget projections, inflation adjusted gdp or real gdp expands by 3.3% this year and 2.4% in 2019. most of this growth is driven by consumer spending and business investment but federal spending also contributes a significant amount this year. growth of real gdp exceeds the growth of real potential gdp over the next two years. this marks cyclical nath real gdp will occur in large part because of the recent legislation provides significant fiscal stimulus at a time when there's a very little slack in the economy. those effects as well as larger federal budget deficits resulting from the new laws exert upward pressure on interest rates an prices. during the 2020 to 2026 period those factors along with slower growth and federal outlays and the expiration of reductions in

personal income tax rates dampen economic growth. after 2026, economic growth is projected to rise slightly matching the growth rate of potential output by 2028. between 2018 and 2028 real actual output and real potential output alike are projected to expand at an annual rate of 1.9%. in our forecast the growth of potential gdp is the key determinate of actual gdp through 2028 because actual output is very near its potential level right now and is projected to be near its potential level at the end of the period. potential output is projected to grow more quickly than it has since the start of t'07 to 2009 recession as it increased over the past 25 years. nonetheless, potential output is pro swrekted to grow more slowly than in earlier decades held down by slower growth of the labor force which results

from -- partly results from the retirement of baby boomers. the 2017 tax act on incentives to work, save, and i investigate raise real potential gdp through the 2018 to 2028 period. over the same period the tax act is pro swrekted to boost the level of real gdp by an average of 0.7% and nonforeign payroll employment by an average of 1.1 million jobs. our current economic pro jections differ from those we made in june of 2017 in a number of ways. the most significant is that potential and actual real gdp are projected to grow more quickly over the next few years. projected outsput greater because of the legislation, data that's become available after our previous economic projections were completed and improvements in our analytical methods. over the next deck indicate the unemployment rate is lower in our current projections than our previous ones. particularly during the next few years when economic stimulus

boosts demand for labor. both short and long term interest rates are pro swrekted to be higher on average from 2018 to 2023. turning to the budget projections, we estimate that the 2018 budget will total $804 billion, 139 billion more than the $665 billion shortfall recorded in 2017. in our projections, budget deficits continue increasing after 2018 as deficits accumulate, debt held by the public rises from 78% of gdp or $16 trillion at the end of this year to 96% of gdp or $29 trillion by 2028. that percentage would be the largest since 1946 and well hor than twice the average over the past five decades. for the next few years, revenues hover near the level of 16.6% of gdp in our projection dollars, then they rise steadily reaching 17.5% of gdp by 2025. at the end of that year, many

provisions of the 2017 tax act will expire causing receipts to rise sharply to 18.1% of gdp in 2026, and 18.5% in 2027, and 2028. they have averaged 17.4% of gdp over the past 50 years. in our projections outlays for the next three years remain near 21% of gdp this is higher than the average of 23.4% over the past 50 years. after that outlays grow more quickly than the economy does. that increase reflects significant growth in mandatory spending mainly because of the aging. population and riegds healthcare costs per beneficiary are projected to increase spending for social security and medicare among other programs. also it reflects significant growth in interest costs which are projected to grow more quickly than any other major component of the budget. the result of rising interest rates and mounting debt. by 2028 outlays for interest are pro swrekted to be triple what

they in dollar terms this year. roughly double when measured as to percent of gdp. in contrast, discretionary spending is pro elected to decline in relation to the size of the economy. for the 2018/2027 period, we now project a cumulative deficit of $1.26 trillion larger than in june. it with is lower by 1 trillion and outlays are higher by half a trillion. laws enacted since june, 2017, above all the three mentioned earlier are estimated to make the equivalent -- the cumulative deaf set $27 trillion larger than previously projected between 2018 and 2017. however, revisions to our economic projection cause us to reduce our estimate by the cumulative deficit by $1 trillion over the same period mainly because of the expectations of faster growth in the economy and in wathds

corporate profits. other changes had relatively small effects on the pro jections. cbo also analyzed an alternative scenario which current law was altered to maintain current policies that are now in place. so that substantial tax increases and spending cuts would not take place as scheduled under current law and provide for typical amounts of emergency funding than the sums provided for in 2018. in that scenario, far larger deficits and much greater debt would result than in the cbo's current baseline pro jections. debt held by the public would reach about 105% of gdp by the end of 2018 an amount that's been exceeded only once in the nation's history. moreover, the pressure's contributing to that rise would accelerate and push debt up even more sharply in subsequent decades. such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences for the budget and the nation. in particular, the likelihood afis cal crisis in the united states would increase. i appreciate the invitation to testify today about cbo's budget and economic outlook. i would be happy to answer

questions. >> thank you for your testimony and even more for the expanded documents that you do to help us to know where things are going. we'll now begin a round of questions and i think everybody knows how we alternate back and forth and it's based on being here at the sound of the gavel or arrival since that time. so i'll be begin my questions. the tax begins and jobs act is already stimulated the economy putting more dollars in the hands of hard-working americans and businesses for investments as we look forward to the reduction in the business tax rates, i see they are incentivizing more work and higher investment. and i noticed in your chart on table two that revenues grow every single year.

i notice that outlays grow every single year too and more substantially than revenues do, which is -- which is the problem that we need to solve. can you expand on the expected individual and business response to the tax bill in the medium term? >> sure. we forecast that the tax act will encourage savings, investment and work. the reduction in the lower tax rates and the bonus expensing we think will lower the user cost of capital and increase investment in the economy and boost gdp growth. we also see that the effective marginal tax rates on labor income is also down. we think that will increase labor force participation, hours worked and i creased employment throughout the ten-year period. we also think that the reduction in effective marginal tax rates

on both capital and labor will have significant effect. i think our average boosted gdp over the ten-year period is .7 percentage points higher over the ten-year period because of the tax act. >> we were hoping for .4, so .7 is good news. excluding intergovernmental transfers and counting only income from sources outside the government such as social security payroll taxes, and medicare premiums, you estimate that the trust fund programs will add the deficits through the 2019 to 2028 period by amounts that grow from 655 billion to in 2019 to 1.5 trillion in 2028. these trust fund programs will add a total of 10.2 trillion over the ten-year budget window. is the current trajectory of

these programs fiscally sustainable and without legislative action which year do you project that the social security disability trust fund and medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted? not that i'm suggesting cuts in those, i'm suggesting solutions somehow. but if you can -- >> well, the aging of the population and the rise in healthcare costs we think will -- are the major forces driving the increase in the deficit over the next ten years and beyond. that's exactly right. the -- the health insurance fund, for example, we think is going to run out of money in 2026. we haven't -- we haven't re-estimated the old agency survivors program but our last estimate was that would be exhausted in 2031. >> thank you. the latest baseline includes more than $14 trillion in

discretionary spending over the next ten years while they're able to authorize its spending each year many of the undefense programs remain unauthorized, a problem that persists. i know that cbo prepares a report each year on unauthorized appropriations but this year it was released prior to final appropriations being enacted. assuming defense to be authorizesed on an annual basis, do you have an estimate of what portion of this 14 trillion in your current baseline is unauthorized? >> we don't. it was a large number in 2016, it was about $310 billion. we haven't updated the estimate. we don't really want to forecast too much because obviously congress decides what to authorize going forward so that number could change. >> okay. i think we'll be interested in getting that number anyway. >> okay. >> the tax cut and jobs act made the corporate rate permanent to ensure long-term investment decisions that businesses have

to make over the long term. and show the u.s. is a competitive market. dr. hall, does the lower statutory corporate rate encourage firms to locate their establishments domestically? >> yes. we do believe that the overall effect of the tax act is to make the u.s. a more appealing location for business activity. so we actually do see that the reduction in corporate rates and some of the changes in the international tax system will boost investment and actually increase investment in the united states from abroad. >> thank you. my time's expired. dr. sanders. >> thank you for the doctorate. >> sure. >> barely made it through college. dr. hall, as you know, the president trump and some of my republican colleagues have said

over and over again that the tax cuts, tax cut bill would pay for itself. on page 128 of your report on the budget and the economy, however, the cbo projects that the trump tax plan will increase the deficit by nearly $1.9 trillion over the next 11 years, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. so, my friends, at the end of how many hours we have sat in this room hearing about the benefits of trickle down economics that magically if you give tax breaks to bill airs it's going to create all the growth and tax revenues will increase to overcome the deficit, turns out not to be true. dr. hall, president trump, among others, has claimed that -- this is a quote from trump, quote, the rich will not be gaining at all with this tax plan, end of

quote. but according to the tax policy center, by the end of the decade 83% of the benefits of the trump tax plan go to the top 1% and 60% of the benefits go to the top 1/10th of 1%, is that accurate? >> think that's their estimate. we haven't done a similar calculation. >> what we are talking about say tax plan that significantly grows the deficit and almost all of the benefits go to the very, very wealthiest people in this country. one of the issues that concerns me is that what we are seeing happening to working families all across this country. and, dr. hall, i don't know if you've even seen it, but a report came out literally today from the bureau of labor statistics and the report tells us that the average worker in

america has seen zero, zero wage growth over the past year after adjusting for inflation. in march of 2017, the typical nonmanager in america made about $22.60 an hour in march of 2018, that same worker made the same, $22.60 an hour. that sound roughly right to you? >> that sounds roughly right, yes. >> so what i would say, and, dra doctor hall, while we're at it can you talk a little bit about income in wealth and equality? is it true based on your understanding that the three wealthiest people in this country now own more wealth than the bottom half of the american people? >> that, i don't know. we did just release a report, i don't have the numbers many my head. we did just release a report in the past few weeks about income and equality that's worth looking at. >> okay. well, we will do that.

my colleague from wyoming, the chairman, talked about social security and medicare. i introduced legislation that would lift the cap on taxable social security income for people making $250,000 a year or more. now, everybody is concerned about the financial future of social security, that is a legitimate concern. if you lift -- correct me if i'm wrong here. but according to social security administration, if you lift the cap on income of $250,000 or more, which is just the very highest income earners in this country, social security will be solvent for the next 60 years and we can increase benefit for lower income -- benefits for lower income social security beneficiaries. does that sound right to you? >> i don't know if that's true or not. i haven't looked at their -- >> according to the social

security administration. so for all people who are concerned about the solvency in social security, the answer is not to cut benefits, but at a time of massive income and wealth and equality, to ask the people on top to start paying their fair share of taxes so that we can protect the many, many millions of people today who are trstruggling to keep thr heads above water in my state and i'm sure every state in this room. we don't talk about this enough. mr. chairman, it might be worth a hearing on this. you've got a lot of elderly people who are cutting their prescription drugs in half, can't afford the med sthan thic they need, can't afford to keep warm in the wintertime. we have a crisis among the elderly people in this country. answer is not to be talking about social security or medicare, it's to be strengthening those programs through a fairer tax system. thank you very much, dr. hall and thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator grassley. >> thank you for your work, director hall. sorry that there's such a bleak picture painted. having the public debt go from 70 aif 78% to 98% of gross national product isn't very good news. i hope congress thinks about the impact on our children and grandchildren, but with that debt and deficit, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to make this all about revenue and the historic tax cuts that we enacted. i think that that completely disregards the positive economic effects of these reforms that i think you pointed out in your change with the chairman. so my first question is kind of carrying on where the chairman

left off, is it not accurate based on your analysis that the tax reforms enacted last year will increase economic growth, lead to lower unemployment, increase hours worked, increase capital investment, and increase wages? >> yes, those are all true. >> yeah. so then i have to conclude that when democrats say that they want to repeal tax reforms, that they're really telling the american people that they want fewer jobs and lower wages and no american's going to think that's acceptable. based on your analysis, how would allowing the individual tax reforms to expire after 2025 impact the economy? >> well, we think that will be sort of the open cyst stimulus. we do think it will help slow growth. one of the reasons we did the alternative scenario was so that some of those things like the tax rates don't expire and they continue. to give you an idea of that.

>> okay. instead of asking you a question, unless you disagree with this percentage, i'm going to say that revenue was a percentage of gdp has averaged 17.4% over the last 50 years. according to your analysis, what will revenue as a percentage of gdp be in 2025 which is prior to the expiration of the individual tax reforms? >> i think it's somewhere north of 18% of gdp. so it's a bit higher. >> if suring a north of 18%, then that's even better than what i thought it was going to be 17.5. so even with the tax cuts enacted last year, full fli effect, revenue was a percentage of gdp will exceed the historic

average? >> that's right. and i did misspoke. i got the year wrong. you're right, it's 17.5% in 2025, i was looking at the next year. >> now, turning to spending, is it correct that over the past 50 years that spending has averaged about 20.3% of gdp? >> yes. >> and what do you project spending to average over the next ten years as a percentage of gdp? >> it's -- i don't have the number right in front of me, i'm sorry. but it's something north of 21%. >> yeah, i think quite a bit north. >> okay. >> i don't know whether these figures come from you, but i have down here 22.4 reaching 23.6 in 2028. >> that sound right. >> and what are the primary drivers of spending growth? >> well, primary drivers are things relate to the aging population and healthcare costs. so it's -- it's things like

medicare, medicaid, and those -- the entitlements because of the aging population. >> yeah. i think i agree with that. i don't know whether these percentages are accurate, but they take up 12.9% of gdped it and that -- gdp today and that's going to up 24.9 while discretionary spending is set to fall one percentage point. so they will remain on power with historic averages but spending is set to increase significantly over historic norms. it seems to me that if we're going to get control of our growing debt and deficits, our focus needs to be on the spending side particularly manner to spending programs. i yield. >> senator wyden. >> thank you, mir chairman.

dr. hall, good to see you again and your professionalism is always appreciated. here in this room a bipartisan tax reform bill was produced by then chairman judd greg and i was proud to be one of the sponsors of it. our approach would have put the bulk of the tax relief into the pockets of the middle class rather than the multinational corporations. fortunately our colleagues on the other side rejected that bipartisan approach and others and decided to put the massive tax cuts for the multinational corporations on the national credit card. so let me keep you clear of politics and let's just walk through a couple of numbers so we can be clear about this. so, in the updated outlook, you all estimate that the trump tax slaw going to increase the deficit by almost $1.9 trillion

over the budget window even after taking economic feedback, economic possibilities into account. nearly $600 billion of that cost is due just a bigger interest payments on all this new debt. here's my question, and just apropos of the numbers. besides slashing social sku security, medicare and medicaid, i don't know where else republicans could possibly go to pay for this $1.9 trillion in debt largely going to the multinational corporations. in fact, when i sort of strip the budget down, it would seem to me that cutting the defense budget would be the only other realistic option. what is missing here with that

analysis? >> well, you know, i don't want to make recommendations, i suppose, on how to fix the problem. >> i don't want you to, i just want to hear -- i mean, i guess when i looked at that time last night i said, maybe they could cut everything discretionary, like nih and we'd lose the prospects of research. but basically other than the defense department and cutting that, where else would any go or could they go other than social security, medicare, and medicaid? >> i actually have -- one of my favorite figures here gives you a little bit of insight from the report, figure 43. right now net interest alone is about 1.6% of gdp. and that number is going to triple just the net interest payments is going to triple over the next ten years. and that will become about 3.1%

of gdp. that's bigger than all of defense spending, discretionary spending, it's bigger than all of nondefense discretionary spending. so my point is that the interest sko cost is starting to swamp things like defense spending and nondefense spending. whatever the fix is going to be, it needs to be something that's pretty big. >> so you can't just wave your hand and sort of throw up fairy dust and say you're going to drive down the debt. i mean, i'm just looking at three ranges of kind of numbers. one of them when you have that amount of debt is, had is where i think they're going, is social security, medicare and medicaid and i base that on their budget proposal for this year. then i think you could wipe out the discretionary budget, nih

and parks and the like. but i can't see any other budgetary, you know, real estate. and i know my time is almost up. you can give me some examples for other possibilities than what i mentioned? >> i think looking at that figure it gives you some idea of where the buckets are. but even that is sort of underestimating the problem because that's just the interest cost. that's just getting a deficit down towards zero. we then have a huge amount of debt sitting out there. so i think the problem's even more extreme than that. >> well, i'm not going to pummel this any longer and you have certainly made a very good point with respect to the debt. but when the growth projections are nowhere near what was promised, number one, middle

class aren't seeing what they were told they were going to get, which was a $4,000 pay raise in the middle class drives 70% of the american economy, i don't see how growth is going to get you close to paying for that $1.9 trillion that was put on the credit card and it still leaves us with a safety net and defense, unless you want to cut the discretionary programs, and i don't see that being proposed ieth pert so i'll look forward to talking with you about this more and i share your concern about the debt. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> thank you all for being here. i have several committee assignments like most people here and this has nothing to do with our leadership. i find this to be the least serious committee that i serve on but we thank you for being

here today and it seems like it's always a sort of a partisan whoever's in charge tit for tat. none of us, none of us have covered ourselves in covered ourselves in glory. this congress, and this administration likely will go down as one of the most physically irresponsible administrations and congresses that we've had. my best vote, one of the best votes i've made here was a budget control act of 2011. and we didn't finish the work by leading to see questions tear by leading to cuts that needed to be made. i wasn't on special counsel. i don't know if any one here was. but it was the best vote i have made in that we have at least capped the domestic spending for a period of time. it would have been better if we did the work. you talked about the cost of this tax bill. and if it ends up costing what

is laid out here, it's going to be one of the worst votes i've made. i hope that's not the case. i hope there is other data but i want to get back to that in a moment. but the thing that's never talked about here is we, just the bipartisan budget, my group just did an analysis of the bipartisan budget agreement that we just passed, did you not do that in your papers because it had just happened. but i think you are saying that the tax bill could add $1.9 trillion in debt over the next ten years. spending bill we just passed, if policy continues will be $2.1 trillion. would you say what we did in fairness, passing the spending bill we just passed, would add about the same order of magnitude of in debtness over ten year period as the tax bill? >> yeah, actually we do have a

bit of an estimate. i think the add to discretionary spending from those two bills is about $650 billion over the next ten years. >> what? >> bipartisan budget act and om into boss they combine to add about $650 billion to the deficit over ten years. >> not under current policy? >> well, that is under. >> surely don't tell me that you'll lose all credibility. $650 billion in debt current policy over what we just passed? >> yes. >> about $305 billion of that is from exceeding the caps. then we added another $330 billion to spending not subject to the caps. >> so if you add $150 billion a year spending, we added $150

billion to the baseline, did we not? >> you mean -- >> we just added $150 billion to the baseline. how could you ult ply that by ten and come up with $650 billion? i mean, with any growth at all, it's going to be in the 2 trillion dz when you include debt service. >> right. right. if you look at the table a 1, we have the change, changes in our budget forecast since june 2017. if you look under chris nediscr outlays adding around $650 billion to the deficit over the ten years that didn't exist before. >> if you keep current policy in place. >> right, that's right. >> i want to follow up with you on that. >> sure. >> that cannot be accurate. >> okay. >> okay. i mean, just do the math, you

add $150 billion to the baseline, you multiply it by 10, it cannot be accurate. but, anyway, the point is that we've had both spending that is increase deficit and tax reform that has increased the deficit. is that correct? >> that's right. >> so really both sides of the aisle only three people on the committee that hasn't been involved in increasing deficit over the last 15 months are senator harris, sanders, and senator merkley. and i don't think it's because they are fiscal conservatives. i think it's because they didn't agree with priorities in these bills. but they are the only three that haven't participated in increasing the deficit. we all have participated. i voted against the spending. some of you voted against the tax bill. but let's face it, both sides of the aisle are totally remiss as it relates to deficits.

and i mean i listen to this partisan bickering over blaming people. it's ridiculous lu. we are absolutely not capable of dealing with our country's finances. and of course a big part of it the american people don't really want it to be controlled. i want to get back to you on the numbers. >> sure. >> and i know mime time is up. the thing confusing to me. i notice that, and i'll close with this, on page 117, you've got the growth at .7%, an average increase growth of .7% over the ten-year period. and we were looking at an average growth increase of .4% paying for this bill that was passed, tax reform bill. and i'm just confused as to whether that's just a seven tenths increase in the baseline and there really isn't that much growth, i'm confused over that.

so i want to get back to you on that. i know my time is up. >> sure. one thing that's confusing is that's a level. we think the level would be seven tenths higher on average. >> okay. senator van hvan hollen. >> i thank you and i want to thank you for your nonprofessional work. as your report clearly indicates the claims that the recent tax cut would pay for itself were pure fantasy. you indicate here that even with additional economic growth, the debt will increase by close to $2 trillion over ten years. i want to dig down a little bit into the different impact this tax bill has on gross domestic product versus gross national product. because both are measures of our economy, but am i correct in

saying that gross national product is a better measure of the income that comes to the people of the united states? >> that's right. gross domestic product focuses where things are made. and gross national product focuses on who gets the income from what's made. >> right. so to the extent that the republican tax law boosts gross domestic product by more than gross national product, it's because some of that income from increased economic activity is flowing to foreigners instead of americans, right? >> right. and one of the big reasons is the big increase in borrowing that we are having to do, both privately and public, is coming from abroad. so when you borrow money, those are interest payments and that's interest that flows out of the country. >> and it's also a fact that if you look ste stock of american companies, 35% of that stock is

owned by foreigners, when there is a stock buyback that is money flowing back into overseas not americans. in fact if you dig into your report, you find by 2028, cbo concludes the republican tax law boost domestic product by 5% but boosts gross national product by .1%. is that right? >> that's correct. >> so doesn't this mean that roughly 80% of the income from the increased activity of the tax plan in the final year when it's fully kicked in is going to foreigners? >> yeah, i'm not sure i would characterize it that way. but i get your point about the boost. >> dr. hall you just said gdp is total economy, and that's the amount going to foreigners. >> sure. >> so you are finding that gdp is growing a lot faster in year

ten than gpp, right? >> that's right. >> and in fact five times faster, right? >> right. >> all right. so 80%, i just want to be clear, mr. chairman, 80% of the benefit of increased economic activity from the tax law is going in the pockets of foreigners. so every dollar increase of economic activity in 2028, 80 cents of that is not going into the pockets of hard working americans thats chairman referred to, it's going in the pockets of foreigners, right? >> i think your calculation is right. i'm just not sure how exactly we would look at the benefits or the impact of the tax act by just what you said. >> as you said, it's a your point. >> i'm not triegs to argue with you. i want to be more -- >> i want to ask you about two parts of the plan i spent on the floor warning my colleagues, and this has to do with foreign minimum tax, here it's called guilty for short. you are familiar with that piece? >> yes.

>> and there is another part deduction for profits from foreign sales which they call the fdii or fidii. >> that's right. >> and on page 409 of your report, you say, a corporation is able to reduce amount of foreign income characterized as guilty, similarly, by locating fewer tangible assets in the united states the corporation can increases the amount of u.s. income that can be deducted as fdii. and you conclude together the provisions may increase corporations incentives to locate tangible assets a broad. just to translate into english, when we talk about moving tangible assets a broad, we are talking about things like plant and equipment and that kind of thing, right? >> right. although i don't want to exaggerate that. part of what we were doing there is pointing out it's pretty complicated. >> yeah. >> dr., i'm just read frg your report. >> i understand. >> your findings here are skintd

with that of lots of economists as you know. that this provision the way this provision was written creates this perverse incentive to ship jobs overseas. and if a corporation does succeed in lowering its tax bill by moving factory overseas along with the jocks, then they are effectively getting a tax break by moving plant and equipment overseas, aren't they? >> i want to put it into context though. we think over all the tax act will encourage investment in the united states not abroad. >> but part of that investment is from foreigners. >> right. >> and foreigners in year 2028 are getting 80 cents of every dollar from economic activity? >> right, part of that forner. >> more foreign investment and more profits for forner ns a bill that was sold as something that was going to help the american worker. final question relates to the other half of the guilty which is the fdii. would you agree that's a tax expenditure? >> well, it's not our call.

it will be the joint committee and taxation, that he will follow up with that. >> is that the kind of thing that you have in the past have said is a sort of a tax break that people get that others don't? >> actually we haven't. we rely on the jct to make that determination. >> i find it ironic, mr. chairman that we have what is a government program that encourages people to move plants and equipment overseas. i thank you. >> all right. senator cotton. >> thank you, director hall for your appearance and your testimony. there has been a lot of talk so far about the macro economic picture and budget debt and economic so forth. let's bring it down to the micro picture what this means for families. cbo outlook projection unemployment rates in 2019 of 3.3%. historically low, so that's good news. maybe even better news cbo projects increase in hourly wages and competition in labor amongst businesses because bidding up of wages is

necessary. director hall, what are the policies foster that competition and leading to the increase in hourly wages? >> well, we are ending the slack in our economy, about you we have a lot of stimulus from the tax act and the other two bills. so that stimulus really is pushing gdp growth above potential, so getting this low unemployment rate we think in higher employment. >> does that mean that some of the gains from that growth, whatever it may be, we have our differences between the two parties, but some of the gains from that growth will a crew to greater degree to labor than it will to capital since you are seeing wage increases for people's labor? >> well, yeah, there will be benefits from labor. and we dossier decline in the marginal tax on labor as a result. >> i think that's a good thing given that labor for many decades now, especially unskilled low skilled laborers, people getting out of high school and going straight into the workforce, haven't seen their wages increase. i think one important policy that we need to continue is immigration enforcement.

and i think that we need to take a look the our immigration levels. because obviously we can increase our abstract gdp simply by bringing in millions of more workers increase your gdp pour productivity or workers, that wouldn't be good for american families on gdp or per capital or household basis. i want to turn something that i did not see in your rofrmt i looked to tur report and i did not see much, if anything, about national defense and military spending. did i overlook that? or did you not put much focus there? >> you know, i think we didn't put a ton of focus. we did our usual. >> and i raise that because i want to make the point that i don't think our military is responsible for driving much of these deficits in the debt we face now. and i think your report makes that clear, in part, by not discussing the increased military spending. no doubt we increase military spending substantially this year and next year.

but as your report makes clear, the long-term debt picture is driven primarily by retirement especially health care spending. is that right? >> that's right. >> and i would even make the case that in the long-term military spending is essential for controlling our deficits and ultimately our national debt, because it creates the international system in which our economy operates. a few figures here. in the world war ii about international trade and investment that trade expansion in the united states produced roughly $2.1 trillion in economic gains. that translates into more than $7,000 per person and more than $18,000 per household. and that our economy is about 13% larger than it would have been absent that increase. it's hard to imagine that kind of increase in trade happening if we had had a conflict on the scale of world war ii again. no doubt there has been many wars and our nation has participated in many of those wars. but certainly we have not had the kind of great power conflict

in this world that we saw from 1939 to 1945. the federal reserve bank studied the effects of war on trade and concluded that not only severely diminished trade in the long-term for countries directly involved but even for neutral country saw declines in trade up to 10%. and it's the united states military that's been creating that environment that's been patrolling the sees, securing critical choke points, forcing our allies to consolidate tore remode yat their differences so small conflicts doesn't rise into big conflicts. as well as deterring first the soviet union and now some other peer competitors from the kind of adventurism that lawn shds us into world war ii and before that world war i. so we spend a lot on our military, we spend a lot more than any other nation, many of the closes nations combined. but that's in part because military competition is so d destructive of economic growth

and pros spertd and therefore we can't afford to skimp on that. i took that to be the message of absence of of military spending in your report and testimony is that the military is one of the most fundamental things our government spends taksz payer dollars on and that we have to continue to do so in the hopes of pros expert for our country. thank you. >> senator harris. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. i reviewed the cbo's outlook for the next decade, and i'm deeply concerned about the increase to the deficit. as many of the members of this committee have expressed. especially troubled that much of the deficit increase can be attributed to the republican tax plan that was passed a few months ago which will add nearly $1.9 trillion to the deficit. according to the cbo's analysis debt will exceed the size of the entire united states economy in just over a decade. two years sooner than you forecasted in june.

the debt problem created by a massive giveaway to the wealthy and corporations and by making the individual tax cuts expire in 2025, while making the corporate tax cuts permanent, this was a pure giveaway to the corporations and the top 1% of the united states. and when congress talks about how we fix this deficit increase from the tax plan, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle discussed the need foreign entitlement cuts. enentitlement cuts really mean cutting medicare, medicaid, and social security. it means cutting the main programs 4.3 million seniors in my home state of california rely on. seniors who deserve to retire with dignity. from my constituents retiring with dignity means being able to afford their prescription drugs. it means not living paycheck to paycheck. and having the peace of mind that government will not takeaway the benefits promised

to them. at a time when so many seniors cannot afford their life saving medications, we need a budget that allows medicare to negotiate drug prices. what we don't need is a budget that cuts $500 billion from the program over the next decade. when trying to repeal the affordable care act this past year, congressional members proposed cutting medicaid by $700 billion. the same program that cut 6 out of 10 seniors nursing home uses. nearly, two thirds of california seniors depend on social security for at least half of their annual income. an average of $21,300. with cuts to social security, millions of seniors would struggle to make ends meet. so when we discuss balancing the budget, we need to speak the truth that this tax plan has ballooned the deficit for the purpose of delivering billions of dollars to the top 1% while

putting access to affordable health care and a shot at a decent retirement at risk for any one else. so, dr. hall, my question is, based on your updated budget outlook, can you tell me whether the effects of this tax bill either directly or indirectly impact the sol enzi of medicare and social security? >> certainly, anything that adds to the deficit and the debt is going to have impact on things going forward. we get a little boost in economic growth, that might extend the exhaustion dates. but the basic problem is still there and the basic issue of the debt getting to an unsustainable level is maybe more intense than it was before. >> and will you agree that it's going to have a disproportionate impact on senior americans? >> i mean, it certainly changes in medicare and that sort of

thing would have disproportionate effect. i guess it depends how congress decides how to deal with the problem. >> right. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator merkley. >> thank you very much for coming and bringing your expertise to bear on our economic situation. i was looking at numbers from the joint committee on taxation, which laid out that 17 out of every $20 in the benefits from the tax reductions goes to richer americans or roughly 84%. that did not include the estate tax, by the way, which was specifically excluded which goes 100% to the very richest americans. what is your analysis of the percent of the tax benefits that go to those who earn more than $100,000? >> we haven't updated those

numbers. we did in this baseline. we tried to reproduce that. so i couldn't tell you anything different than bha jct has on the topic. >> do you have any reason to think jct is far off the mark? >> no, no, i don't. >> and would you agree that if you include the estate tax, the numbers would be even worse? >> that sounds right. >> yes. well, i think that's an important point. because something that was sold as beneficial to middle class is actually beneficial to the best off. and that brings me to the second point, which is your analysis shows that from ten months ago until now, the annual deficit has grown from estimated $563 billion to estimated $804 billion or roughly $241 billion increase from ten months ago. >> that's correct. >> okay. and if it extends it over ten years, i think your numbers were about $1.6 trillion. >> yes.

>> of just additional, on top of the baseline that existed ten months ago, to be clear? >> that's right. >> and how much of that is the tax bill and how much of that is spending bill? >> yeah. that's a good question. had the tax bill is a big part of that. i think the tax bill is, i'm sorry, let me look it up quickly. >> you bet. >> i can tell you the spending part of it. the spending part actually is 40 to 45% of that increase. so actually is a pretty significant pafrmt b significant part. and probably more than the remainder is the tax bill. >> so a great share of the tax bill, even if you include some

growth productions, is funded through borrowing? >> correct. >> okay. so essentially we have a bill that has borrowed from our children, because they are the ones that in her iherit the deb the vast benefits to the richest americans. >> that's a way of looking at it. >> not just a way of looking at it. but that is a fair reading of the numbers? >> well, it obviously depends upon who winds up fixing the deficit i suppose who bears the burden how congress decides to deal with it. but delay is certainly pushing the burden back in time. >> okay. i want to point out a pattern that i found quite interesting. under president carter we had essentially him closing out with the same deficit that existed the year before he took office, despite the oil shocks about $73

billion. under president reagan the deficit increased from 73 to 149 or roughly doubling. under president bush, the first president bush we had another near doubling going from 149 to 290. under president clinton we had reduction from 290 to surplus of 236. so obviously a vast decrease in the deficit. in fact a surplus. and so we are reducing our national debt. under bush, the second, we had increase from 236 to 458. so another rough doubling. and under president obama the results of the recession first year in office 1.4 trillion in deficit reduced down to 584 when he left office. why is it that the deficit decreases under democratic leadership and increases under republican leadership? >> i wouldn't want to offer an opinion on that. >> have i read the numbers

accurately? >> that sounds right. >> well, i do think it's an important point to make, because what we have seen for a pattern that has increased our debt vastly has been republican leadership has repeatedly taken us deep into the red. democratic leadership has reduced that damage. and yet all we hear from our republican colleagues is how their fiscally responsible. how can one square the rhetoric with the reality? >> i wouldn't want to offer an opinion. >> it's not your responsibility to offer that. but i'm glad you confirmed that my numbers were accurate. i'll just close by saying that our children are now financing the biggest theft of money delivered to the wealthy in america. and this is it what you normally see in corrupt irresponsible third world governments, not the united states of america.

>> senator cain. >> thank you, mr. chair. dr. hall, good to be with you. i want to draw your attention to page 33 of the report. i want to ask you about trade. changes to trade agreements or tariff policies on the part of the united states and trading partners that impede trade could have significant adverse effects on aggregate economic activity whereas the removal of trade barriers between the united states and trading partners could improve aggregate economic conditions. we had a hearing recently where the head of the council on economic advisers kevin hassett appeared before us. it was immediately after president trump indicated he was going to impose tariffs on imported aluminum and steel. it was before any of the retaliation back and forth. i asked kevin hassett at the time based 0en my understanding the number of workers in american industries that make aluminum and steel is dramatically smaller than the

number of workers that work in american industries that make things with aluminum and steel. i asked his economic opinion about whether the imposition of these tariffs would be a plus or minus for american workers. and he said that the economic literature would suggest that just looking at it that way, before you get into retaliation discussion, it would likely have a negative effect on jobs. do you agree with that? >> i do. >> and then if we get into the subsequent retaliation issues, the aluminum and steel issues matter a lot to voir againians because i have coors beer and anheuser-busch, you know, big brewerryes buying aluminum for cars and also have a plant in dublin, i'm sorry, volvo raise their costs and raise to costs

to consumers. so some effect in aluminum and steel in virginia. but over the last couple of weeks traveling around a lot of concern on the ag side, the announcement by china retaliate with respect to soybeans and pork and other agricultural products are very challenging to virginians. talk a little about -- i don't know. have you at the cbo started to do any analysis of what either this tariff on an aluminum or steel, or more broadly if retaliation were to occur, what would the effect be on american workers and american farmers? >> we haven't. and in fact our economic forecast closed about mid-february. so we really haven't taken any of that on board. certainly, that's the sort of thing we would pay attention to and see how things turn out. and would be something we would include in our baseline economic forecast at a later date next time we do it or whenever significant changes are made.

>> you did generally agree with the way -- with the hassett conclusion that the imports tariffs on aluminum steel are likely mob negative than positive on american workers. do you have any opinion if there is retal tory on ag sector is that going to be net good or bad in terms of the workforce? >> you know, to be fair, the real solution how it winds up is sort of how it winds up, rather than just this one act like that. i do think a lot of the concerns, i find them interesting, because they are the inverse of the benefits of freer trade, of having trade negotiations and trade agreements, right, is that you can have lower prices and lower cost to production, you can have access to foreign markets, with good trade agreements. so undoing those can have the

reverse effect. but, again, to be fair, we have to see where we wind up. >> some of the retaliation discussion is still kind of at the rhetorical level. i think the tariffs have been imposed but the discussions is rhetorical right now. >> right. and we don't know what sort of tariff changes the u.s. is likely to make or may make going forward. >> well, i'm just going to conclude and say i think it's interesting that the constitution gives congress really plenary power over trade in the commerce clause. we delegate to the president through fast track which i support pt ability to negotiate trade deals. and then set up a process for bringing those back for congressional up or down vote. i think it's interesting that we want the say over a trade deal but allow presidents to start trade wars without a vote of congress even though the constitution suggests that trade is ultimately for congress. i don't think a president should

be able to do a trade deal or start a trade war without congress giving it. and i hope to work with my colleagues to maybe come up with some improvements in the process so that there can't be a unilateral executive decision to start a trade war when the constitution reserves trade powers to congress. but that's just my opinion. you needn't comment. mr. chair. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> well, mr. chairman, looks like i'm bringing up the rear here, just down to us and dr. hall. dr. hall, you and i have talked before about the health care spending projections graph. >> right. >> and this is the one that i've used before. but, guess what, we have a new one. a new year has gone by. and just for the record, back

here, when the affordable care act passed, cbo did the yellow line estimate of what federal health care spending, all in, all the programs was expected to look like. then as time went on, and we had the experience of the affordable care act and we had whatever else took place, we got this actual result which came in below what was expected. then here there has been a new projection that is made going forward. so this is the old projection. this is the actual through this period. and this is the new projection. now, in the graph that i used to use all the time, this savings delta was $3.3 trillion in savings between the expected spending and the new projection. in this, the number goes up to $4.2 trillion. now, i believe that about $300

billion of that relates to the repeal of the individual mandate. so you could back that out, but that still leaves $3.9 trillion in savings up from $3.3 trillion in savings just in the intervening year. and i think it's important to try to do whatever we can to figure out what is going on here. so i ask you to keep working with us on that. this has a particular emphasis now because, as you know, there is a bicameral select committee trying to reform our budget process, and nobody has been more eloquent than chairman enzi in understanding how broken our

existing budget process is. it's one of the areas where he and i have considerable common cause. i think that one of the ways that we need to fix our existing broken budget process is that we need to have all of the elements that mathematically add to the debt to be considered in our budget process. so not just appropriated spending, but also health care spending, also tax expenditures, and also revenue. that's what mathematically leads to debt and deficit. as a general proposition, do you agree with me, those are the four key elements that mat theically lead to our debt and deficits? >> yes. >> so if we are going to look at health care, we really need to start looking at ways to address this. and i completely disprove of, and will fight to my last breathe, to prevent attacking medicare and medicaid and other federal programs and taking

benefits away from people in order to achieve savings. because i think there are better ways to achieve savings. i think there are efficiencies that can be gained. we are seeing some remarkable results out of some of the accountable care organizations. and it's very hard to extrapolate from coastal medical in the state of rhode island, a provider practice that is now reduced per patient per year cosby $700 while dramatically improving the experience and the care that their patients get to $3.9 trillion in savings. but i suspect that there is something going on out there as we improve the payment system for the health care enterprise so that it's diverted less towards doing things to people

and prescribing things for people and seeing people than it is to doing the things that keep people healthy so they don't need those things in the first place. and i just want to, first of all, ask if you concur with that as a general thought? and, second, will you keep working with us? and anyways we can be helpful to try to figure out what is behind this, $3.9 trillion, that's a lot of money and ougtd to it be amat tear of priority to figure out what is working that has made that difference in this period. >> no, we are interested in that topic. we are interested. we are trying to do some work on that. i know you are interested beyond this, but for no other reason we keep getting the forecast wrong. keep having to estimate health care cost growth. if we understood that better we could give you a berth forecast of future costs. so we are working on that. we would be happy to follow up and talk to you about what we

are doing. >> i know my time is expired. but may i ask additional question, mr. chairman? does your work to look at that look at any -- can you look kind of in any way down through to the experience of, say, a coastal medical or rhode island primary care physicians or a provider group where they are actually seeing that cost, not just not go up so far, actually driving the cost down for their patients? and maybe that's too big of an exhibit trap lags. but what does that look like from your perspective? >> we'll have to do that. i this i that is certainly where we start working on this is talking with providers and their experiences to get an understanding of what's happening at individual providers and see if we can find some common factors in there. so that's certainly going to be part of our met hhodology. >> thank you. because certainly if we can save

expenses while providing better care for people, that would be a serious win-win. >> yes, it would. i thank you for your comments at the last hearing regarding that. and then sharing the information that you did with me. i'll have to get together with you and ask a few questions about that, though, to get more detail on how it actually works. and i thank you for your work on the special budget task force as well. we are really relying on you to come up, as you did working bipartisan before, to come up with some solutions that maybe we can fix that process. >> well, we are much inspired by you, mr. chairman, and senator purdue and i on this committee are doing our best to channel your concerns and wishes into that process. >> well, i appreciate that. and i want to thank you, dr. hall for your testimony today, and for all of the documents that you oversee the preparation of and your full statement will be included in the record.

as information all senators, questions for the record are due by 6:00 p.m. today, with the signed hard copy delivered to the committee clerk in dirksen 624. under our rules our witness has seven days from the receipt of the questions to respond with answers. with no further business to come before the committee, the hearing is adjourned. and we are live now at the rayburn house building capitol hill. forehearing on the president's 2019 bulgt request for the pentagon missile defense programs. three generals are set to testify before the house armed services committee. we'll hear from heads of u.s. va teeingic rksz northern command and the missile defense agencies. looks like witnesses are there waiting for the members of the