epic battle to survive the vietnam war. and the most recent project that was a ten-part documentary, the vietnam war. watch 1968 america in turmoil live sunday at 8:30 eastern on c-span's washington journal and on american history tv on c-span 3. the congressional budget office is forecasting that the budget deficit will surpass $1 trillion by the year 2020 and the total federal debt could be as large as the entire u.s. economy by 2028. cbo director, keith hall testified about the numbers before the senate budget 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 spending programs 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 to ensure 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 cuts and jobs act passed last year was a good step towards growing our economy. it's producing higher wages, more dollars in worker's paychecks and increased domestic development. 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. the budget committee continues to work toward setting a progrowth legislative path for the upcoming year. part of that has to be the process by which congress budgets. we cannot continue to make last

minute deal that is add to our debt and ignore the policy changes needed 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 recited by the budget control act, we have 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 trillion 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 balanced 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 sanders. >> 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 produce more than enough to fill that gap, end of quote. and mr. chairman, on december 19th, you quote, and i am quoting, that's

how much i respect your work, quote, i am tired of the accusation the republican budget hawks, and that includes me, ie you, 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 here's why. claims to the country this that tax bill will go unpaid for based on an incomplete 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 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 inequality that exists in america. you just talked about, if i 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 12,000, 13,000, $14,000 a year, what we should not be doing as a nation is giving unbelievable tax breaks to billionaires and say, oh, we have to cut social security or take away health care benefits from the elderly in this country.

that is a warped sense of priorities, in my view. 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 income today 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 security. what you to do is say to the wealthiest people in this country who in many ways have never had it so good. you recognize the fact that income, wealth and equality is

worse today than at anytime since the 19 20z. 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 an increase in the revenues for them. something has to be done, it needs to be a combination of 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 appeared before this committee to discuss cbo's work and his efforts to increase responsiveness and

transparency at the agency. this morning, dr. hall will be talking about the cbo's 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 followed by questions. welcome, dr. hall. please begin. >> chairman enzi, ranking 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 a cyclical path that 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 '07 to 2009 recession as it increased over the past 25 years. nonetheless, potential output is projected 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. in our projections, the effects of the 2017 tax act on inventives to work save and raise real potential gdp through the 2018 to 2028 period. over the same period the tax act is projected 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 projections 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 output is 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 decade, 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 projected 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 more 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 projections. 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 rising health care 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 projected to be triple what they are in dollar terms this year. roughly double when measured as a percentage of gdp. in contrast, discretionary spending is projected to decline in relation to the size of the economy. for the 2018/2027 period, we now project a cumulative deficit of $1.6 trillion larger than the

10.1 trilli$10.1 trillion defic anticipated 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 deficit $2.7 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 wages corporate profits. other changes had relatively small effects on the projections. cbo also analyzed an alternative scenario which current law was alters to maintain major policy that is 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 projections. 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 of a fiscal 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 cuts and jobs act has already stimulated the economy 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. i noticed in your start on table 2 that revenues grow every single year. i noticed that outlays grow every single year, too, and more substantially than revenues do, 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 have 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 an 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 increase employment throughout the ten-year period. we also think that -- that the reduction in effective marginal tax rates on both capital and labor will of a significant effect. 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 in 2019 to $1.5 trillion in 2028. these trust fund programs will add a total of ten and two tenths trillion to the deficit 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 -- >> 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 health insurance fund, for example, we think is going to run out of money in 2026. we haven't reestimated the old age survivors insurance program but our last estimate was that that will be exhausted in 2031. >> thank you. the latest baseline includes more than $14 trillion in discretionary spending over the next ten years while the armed services committee is able to authorize its spending each year, many of the nondefense 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 continues to be authorized an an annual basis, do you have an estimate of what portion of this $14 trillion in

your current baseline is unauthorized? >> we really don't. the last estimate we did was 2016 and it was a pretty large number, 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 will be interested in getting that number anyway. >> okay. >> the tax cuts 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. as 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 is expired. dr. sanders. >> thank you for the doctorate. >> sure. >> i barely made it through college, though. dr. hall, as you know, president trump and some of my republican colleagues 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 billionaires 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 0.1%. is that accurate? >> i think that's their estimate. we haven't done a similar calculation, though. >> so, in other words, what we

are talking about is a 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 have ever seen it, but a report came out literally today from 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. does that sound roughly right to you? >> that does sound roughly

right, why he. >> so what i woo uld say and, d hall, while we are at it, can you talk a little bit about income and wealth inequality. 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 in my head, we did just release a report in the past few weeks about income inequality 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 the 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 -- 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 the -- >> 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 health inequality, 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 struggling to keep their heads above water.

in my state and i'm sure in every state in this room -- and 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 medicine that they need, can't afford to keep warm in the wintertime. we have a real crisis in terms of poverty among elderly people in this country and the answer is not to be talking about cutting social security or medicare, the answer is to be strengthening those programs through a fairer tax system. thank you very much, dr. hall. 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 78% to 96% 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 exchange 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 is 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 opposite of stimulus. we think it will help slow growth. one of the reasons we did the alternative scenario was assuming 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 a question unless you disagree with this percentage i'm going to say that revenue is 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? >> yeah, i think it's somewhere up north of 18% of gdp. so it's a bit higher. >> okay. if you are saying 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, fully in effect, revenue as 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. >> turning to spending, is it correct that over the past 50 years that spendsing has averaged 20.3% of gdp? >> yes. >> and what do you protect spending to rchl a over the next ten years as a percentage of

gdp? >> i don't have the number right in front of me, i'm sorry, but it's something north of 21%. >> 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 sounds right. i'm sure that's -- >> and what are the primary drivers of spending growth? >> well, primary drivers are things related to the aging population and healthcare cost. so it's things like medicare, medicaid and those -- the entitlements because of the aging population. >> yeah. and i think i agree with that. i don't know whether these percentages are accurate, but they take up 12.9% of gdp today and that's going to go up to 14.9, while discretionary spending, that part that we

appropriate every year, is projected to fall one percentage point. so in sum revenues even with tax cuts will remain on a par 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 time particularly mandatory spending programs. i yield. >> senator wyden. >> thank you, mr. 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 multi-national

corporations. unfortunately our colleagues on the other side rejected that bipartisan approach and others and decided to put the massive tax cuts for the multi-national 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 law is 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 on bigger interest payments on all this new dead. here is my question and just an pra poe of the numbers.

besides slashing social 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 multi-national 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 it last night i said maybe they could cut everything discretionary like nih and we would lose the prospects of research, but

basically other than the defense department and cutting that, where else would they go or could they go on -- 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 4-3. 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 cost is starting to just swamp things like defense spending and nondefense spending. whatever the fix is going to be

has got to be something that's pretty big. >> so you can't just wave your hands 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 -- and this 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 real estate. i know my time is almost -- almost up. can you give me some examples for other possibilities than what i mentioned. >> look at the figure it gives you some idea of where the buckets are, but each 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 is 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 and 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 the safety net and defense, unless you want to cut the discretionary programs and i don't see that being proposed, either. i will look forward to talking with you about this more and i certainly share your view about the debt. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator corker. >> mr. chairman, thank you and, dr. hall, thank you 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. it seems like it's always sort of a partisan whoever is in charge tit for tat. none of us have covered ourselves in glory. this congress and this administration likely will go down as one of the most fiscally irresponsible administrations and congresses that we have had.

my best vote, one of the best votes i have made here was a budget control act of 2011 and we didn't finish the work by alleviating the sequester by making the cuts that needed to be made. i was not on the special committee, i don't know if anybody here was, but we didn't finish our work and so we ended up with a sequester, but it was the best vote that i have made in that we at least capped domestic spending for a period of time. it would have been better if we did our work. you've talked about the cost of this tax bill and if it ends up costing what has been laid out here, it could well be one of the worst votes i have made. i hope that is not the case and i hope there's other data to assist, whether it's jobs or growth or whatever, but i want to get back to that in a moment. but the thing that's never talked about here is we -- i just -- the bipartisan budget, a

group just did an analysis on the bipartisan budget agreement that we just passed, you did not do that in your papers because it had just happened, but i think you're saying that the tax bill could add $1.9 trillion in debt over the next ten years. the spending bill that we just passed, if policy continue, would be $2.1 trillion. would you say that what we did, in fairness, passing the spending bill we just passed, would add about the same order of magnitude of indebtedness over a ten-year period as the tax bill? >> yeah, actually, we do have a bit of an estimate. i think the -- the add to discretionary spending from those two bills is about $650 billion over ten years. >> the what? >> the bipartisan budget act and the omnibus, they combine to add about $650 billion to the deficit over ten years. >> not under current policy.

>> yeah, that is under -- >> that is -- surely don't tell me that. you're going to 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 and then we added about another $330 billion to spending not subject to the caps. >> so if you add $150 billion a year in spending -- we added $150 billion to the baseline, did we not? >> do you mean in -- >> this last -- we just added $150 billion to the baseline. how could you multiply that by ten and some up with $650 billion? with any growth at all it's going to be in the $2 trillion range when you include debt service. >> right. right. if you look at table a-1 we've

got the change, changes in our budget forecast since june 2017 and if you look discretionary outlays you will see we have a forecast here of discretionary 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. >> okay. sure. >> that cannot be accurate. >> okay. >> i mean, just -- i mean, you 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 have had both spending that has increased the deficit and tax reform that has increased the deficit, is that correct. >> that's right. >> so really we have had both sides of the aisle. the only three people on this committee that haven't been involved in increasing the

deficit since -- over the last 15 months are senator harris, senator 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 the priorities that were 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, i mean, both sides of the aisle are totally remiss as it relates to deficits. i mean, i listen to this partisan bickering over blaming people. it's ridiculous. we are absolutely not capable of dealing with our country's finances and of course a big part of it is the american people don't really want it to be controlled. i want to get back with you on the numbers and i know my time is up. the thing that is confusing to me, i notice that -- and i will

close with this -- on page 117 you've got the growth at .7%, an average increased 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, the tax reform bill. i'm just confused as to whether that's just a 0.7 increase in the baseline and there really isn't that much growth. i'm confused on that so i want to get back to you on that. >> one thing that might be confusing, that's a level. we think gdp on average the level would be 0.7 higher over ten years on an average. >> senator van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. hall, i want to start by thanking you and your team for your nonpartisan professional

work and 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 big 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 on 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're having to do both privately and publicly is coming from abroad. when you borrow money you owe interest payments, those interest payments are income that flow out of the country. >> right. and it's also a fact that if you look at the stock of american companies, 35% of that stock is currently owned by foreigners -- of somebody overseas, nonamericans. in fact, if you dig into your report you find that by 2028 cbo concludes that the republican tax law boosts gross domestic product by .5%, but boosts gross national product by only .1%.

is that right? >> that's correct. >> all right. 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? >> i'm not sure i would characterize it that way, but i get your point about -- >> well, dr. hall, you just said that gdp is a measure of the total economy and the difference between gnp and gdp is the amount that's going to foreigners. >> right. >> so your finding that gdp is growing a lot faster in year ten than gnp. >> that's right. >> in fact, it's five times faster, right? >> right. >> 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 of increased economic activity in 2028, 80 cents of that is not going into the pockets of hard working

americans that the chairman referred to, it's going into the pockets of foreigners, right? >> well, i think -- your calculation is right, i'm just not sure exactly how i would look at the benefits or the impact of the tax act. >> as you said, it's in your report. lit me -- >> i'm not trying to argue with you. >> let me ask you about two parts of the plan that i have tried to spend a lot of time on or warning my colleagues about and this has to do with foreign minimum tax, it's called the global intangible low tax income. gilti. there is another part that is deductions from foreign sales which they called the fdii. >> that's right. >> and on page 109 of your report you state, quote, by locating more tangible assets abroad, a corporation is able to reduce the amount of foreign income that is characterized as guilty, similarly by locating

fewer tangible assets in the united states a corporation can increase the amount of u.s. income deducted by fdii. you conclude it may increase incentives to locate tangible assets abroad. to translate that, when we talk about moving tangible assets abroad 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 that it's pretty complicated. >> doctor, i'm just reading your report. your findings here are consistent with that of lots of economists as you know. that this provision, the way this provision was written creates this perverse incentive so ship jobs overseas and if a corporation does succeed in lowering its tax bill by moving its factory overseas along with the jobs then they are effectively getting a tax break by moving plant and equipment overseas, aren't they?

>> yeah, i just want to put it into context. we think overall the tax act is going to encourage investment in the united states on a whole, no the abroad. >> part of that investment as we talked in the earlier kwemt is from foreigners and foreigners in year 2028 are getting 80 cents of every dollar of increased income from economic activity. >> right, part of that -- >> yes, more foreign investment and more profits for foreigners in a bill that was sold as something that was going to help the american worker. final question relates to the other half of the gilti which is the fdii. would you agree that's a tax expenditures? >> it's not our call. it will be the joint committee on taxation, they will follow up with that. >> is that the kind of thing that you have in the past have said is 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 that we have got a government program that encourages people to move plants and equipment overseas. i thank you.

>> senator cotton. >> thank you, director hall for your appearance and testimony. there has been a lot of talk so far about the macro economic picture, budget debt and deficits and economic growth and so forth. let's bring it down to the micro picture how it -- what this means for families. the cbo outlook projects an unemployment rate in 2019 of 3.3%, historically low so that's good news. maybe even better news, cbo projects an increase in hourly wages and attributes that increase to competition for labor among businesses because the bidding up of wages is necessary to attract new employees and retain existing workers. director hall, what are the policies fostering that competition and leading to the increase in hourly wages? >> well, we have a loud stimulus from the tax act and other two bills so that stimulus is pushing gdp growth above potential so we are 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 accrue to a greater degree from labor than it will capital since you're seeing wage increases. >> there will be bin fit to labor and we do see a clee kline in the marginal tax on labor. >> i think that's a good thing given that labor for many decades especially unskilled, low skilled laborers, people getting out of high school and going straight into the workforce haven't seen their wages increase. one important policy we need to continue is immigration enforcement and i think that we need to take a look at our immigration levels because obviously we could increase our abstract gdp simply by bringing in millions of more workers, the way you increase your gdp is more productivity or more workers that is correct wouldn't necessarily be good for america's families, it wouldn't necessarily be good for gdp on a per capita or a per household bases. i want to turn to something that

i did not see in your report. i looked at your report and testimony, 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? >> i think we didn't put a ton of focus. >> and i waived that because i want to make the point that i don't think our military is responsible for driving much of these deficits and the debt we face now and i think your report makes that clear in part by not discussing the increase in military spending. there is no doubt we increased military spending substantially this year and next year, but as your report makes clear the long-term debt picture is driven by -- primarily by retirement, especially healthcare spending. is that right? >> that's right. >> i would even make the case that in the long-term military spending is essential for controlling our deficit and ultimately our national debt because it creates the international system in which our committee operates. i have a few figures here, the end of world war ii about

international trade and investment, that trade expansion in the united states has 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 it not only severely diminished trade in the long-term for countries directly involved but even for neutral countries, you saw decline in trade of up to 10%. it's the united states military that's been creating that environment, that's been

patrolling the seas, securing critical choke points, forcing our allies to cons yat to remediate their differences so small conflicts don't rise into big conflicts as well as deterring first the soviet union and now some other pure competitors from the kind of adventurism that launched us into world war ii and before that world war i. we spend a lot op our military, we spend more than other nations, many of the closest nations combined but that's in part because military competition is so destructive of economic growth and prosperity and therefore we can't afford to skimp on it. i took that to be the message of the absence of much discussion of military spending in your most recent report and your testimony. the military is one of the most fundamental things our government spends taxpayer dollars on and we have to continue to do so if we have any hope of achieving the prosperity that we all hope 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 with the deficit, as many of the members of this committee have expressed. i'm 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 the 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 give away 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 give away to the corporations and the top 1% of the united states. 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 for

entitlement cuts. entitlement 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 desire with dignity. for 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 take away the benefits promised to them. at a time when so many seniors cannot afford their life saving medication 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 six out of ten seniors in 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 healthcare and a shot at a decent retirement at risk for anyone at all. 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 inn packet the future solvency of medicare and social security? >> certainly anything that adds

to the deficit and the debt is going to have an impact on things going forward. >> yeah. >> you know, 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. >> will you agree that it's going to have a disproportionate impact on senior americans? >> i mean, i certainly -- certainly changes in medicare and that sort of thing would have a disproportionate effect. i guess it depends upon how congress decides to deal with the problem. >> right. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator merkley. >> thank you very much for coming in 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. i mean, we did in this baseline we haven't tried to reproduce that. so i couldn't tell you anything different than what jct has on the topic. >> do you have any reason to think jct is far off the park? >> no, i don't. >> would you agree if you include the estate tax the numbers would be even worse? >> that sounds right. >> i think that's an important point because something that was

sold as beneficial 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 an estimated $563 billion to an estimated $804 billion or roughly a $241 billion increase from ten months ago. >> that's correct. >> okay. and if it extends out 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. >> that's right. >> to be clear. and how much of that is the tax bill and how much of that is the spending bill? >> well, yeah, the -- that's a good question. 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 it actually is a pretty significant part, but the remainder is -- and probably more than the remainder is the tax bill. >> so a great share of the tax bill even if you include some growth reductions is funded through borrowing? >> correct. >> okay. so essentially we have a bill that has borrowed from our children because they are the ones that inherit the debt to deliver the vast bulk of the benefits to the richest americans? >> that's a way of looking at it. >> i mean, not just a way of looking at it but it is a fair

reading of the numbers? >> obviously it depends upon who winds up fixing the deficit i suppose who bears the burden about how congress decides to deal with it, but delay is certainly -- delay is certainly pushing the burden back in time. >> 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 a 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 goes from 149 to 290. under president clinton we had a reduction from 290 to a surplus of 236. so obviously a vast decrease in the deficit, in fact, a surplus.

we are reducing our national debt. under push the second we have increase from 236 to 458 so another rough doubling and under president obama the results of the recession his 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

they're 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 will just close by saying that our children are now financing the biggest theft of money delivered to the wealthy in america and this is what you normally see in corrupt irresponsible third world governments not the united states of america. >> senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chair. dr. hall, good to be with you. i just want to just 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 its 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

its trading partners could improve aggregate economic conditions. we had a hearing recently where the head of the council on economic advisers, kevin has set appeared before us. it was immediately after president trump had indicated that he was going to impose tariffs on imported aluminum and steel, it was before any of the subsequent potential retaliation discussion back and forth. i asked kevin hassett at the time based on my understanding that 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 a 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 virginianess because i've got coors beer and analyzer busch, big breweries dying aluminum for cans and also a truck company that is the only manufacturer of volvo trucks in virginia it's going to raise their cost and raise cost to consumers. there is some effect just on the aluminum and steel issue in virginia, but over the course of the last couple weeks we've been on recess traveling around, a lot of concern in virginia on the ag side, the announcement by china that they would retaliate especially with respect to things like soybeans and pork and other agricultural products are very challenging to virgi a

virginianess. have you at the cbo started to do any analysis of either the tariff on aluminum and steel or more broadly if retaliation were to occur what would the effect be on american workers and american farmers? >> we haven't. our economic forecast closed mid-february so we haven't taken any of that on board. certainly with he 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 -- import tariffs on lum and steel are likely to be negative than a positive on american workers. do you have an opinion about whether there is retaliation in the ag sector is that going to be a net good or bad in terms of the workforce?

>> to be fair the real solution how it winds up is sort of how it winds up, rather than just this -- 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 benefit of freer trade, of having trade negotiations or trade agreements. the idea is that you can have lower prices, you can have lower cost of production, you can have access to the foreign markets with good trade agreements. so undoing those can have the reverse effect. but again, to be fair, we have to sort of see where we wind up. >> some of the retaliation discussion is still at the rhetorical level, i guess the tariffs have been imposed but the retaliation discussion is a little bit 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 plen ri power over trade in the commerce clause, we delegate to the president through fast track which i support the ability to negotiate trade deals and then set up a process for bringing those back for a congressional up or down vote. i think it's interesting that we want the say over a trade deal but we 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 an i'm premature. 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.

thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> mr. chairman, it looks like i'm bringing up the rear here, we are just down to us and dr. hall. dr. hall, you and i have talked before about the healthcare spending projections graph and this is the one from -- 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 equipment of what federal healthcare spending all in all the different federal healthcare 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 and 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 asked you to keep working with us on that. this has a particular emphasis now because, as you know, there is a select committee working on trying to reform our budget process and nobody has been more eloquent than chairman ensy in understanding how broken our existing budget process, one 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 healthcare 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 that those are the four key elements that mathematically lead to our debt and deficits auto. >> yes. >> if we are looking at healthcare we have to look at ways to address this. i completely disapprove of and will fight to my last breath 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 its per patient per year cost by $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 healthcare 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 this i think so that keep people healthy so they don't need those things in the first place. 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 if there are anyways that we can be helpful to try to figure out what is -- you know, $3.9

trillion, that's a lot of money. >> right. >> and it ought to be a matter of real priority to try to figure out what is working that has made that difference in this period. >> we are interested in that topic. we're interested. we are trying to do some work on that. i know you are interested beyond that, but if for no other reason we keep getting the forecast wrong, we keep having to lower our estimate of healthcare cost growth. if we understood that better we could give you a better forecast of future costs. so we are working on that. we would be happy to follow up and talk to you a little bit about what we're doing. >> i know my time has expired but may i ask an additional question, 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 a rhode island primary care physicians or a provider group where they are actually seeing that cost not just -- not go up so fast,

they are actually driving the cost down for their patients and maybe that's too big of an extrapolation, but what does that look like from your perspective? >> we will have to do that. cer we start working on this, talking with providers and their e peern experiences to get an understanding of what's happening at individual providers and see if we can find some common factors in there. that's certainly going to be part of our methodology. >> great. well, thank you. surely, mr. chairman, if we could save $700 per person per year on health care expense while providing better care for people, that would be a pretty 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 will have to get together with you and ask a few questions about that though to get more detail on how it actually works. i thank you for your work on the

special budget task force as well. we're 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're much inspired by you, mr. chairman, and senator purdue and i are doing our best to channel your concerns and your wishes into that process. >> i appreciate that. i want to thank you, dr. hall, for your testimony today and for all of the documents 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 a signed hard copy delivered. our witness has seven days from receipt of the questions to respond with answers. with no further business to come before the committee, the hearing is adjourned.

tonight on american history tv, more from our series 1968 america in turmoil with a focus on politics in 1968, looking at both conservative and liberal politics during that election year. american history tv prime time begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. on c-span this week in prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, a conversation with supreme court justice clarence thomas and justice stephen brooier. >> we have a criteria, and the criteria is almost always did the lower courts come to different conclusions on the same question of federal law? okay. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m.

eastern, a look at how the criminal justice system handles people suffering from mental illness. >> since 1980, the number of people going to jail has tripled, and their sentences have increased by 166%. as you peel back the onion and you try to figure out what in the heck has happened, what you will find is most of this is due to untreated mental illness and substance abuse disorders. >> this week in prime time on c-span. a forum now on the future of unmanned aircraft systems. the public safety and faa officials, they talk about the use of aerial drones in law enforcement and disaster response, public safety concerns, and the integration and regulation of uav