Because inflation is now very low, fed policy is focused on reducing slack in the labor market and raising inflation to about 2 . At some point a stronger economy may bring higher inflation rates. With the fed be willing to raise the fed funds Interest Rate above the rate of inflation if the inflation rate begins rising above 2. 5 even if there is still slack in the labor market question mark so let me emphasize that our commitment is twosided. We do not want to see inflation run persistently below our two percent target. We also do not want to see inflation run persistently above our two percent target. Agofomc about two years wanted to make very clear that we have a very strong commitment to a two percent longer run inflation goal. And we for the first time issued a clear statement that 2 as the longer run inflation goal and we remain committed to it. This continues to be the case. Although with inflation running , at this when, as i mentioned, i think the risk is greater that we sho
Weve all served in government and seen both ends of that dynamic, where the highs feel pretty high and the lows feel really low. This is the lowest it gets, and there is a question about what is putin doing . His speech, when he took the formal step in crimea, created a whole set of really serious questions about what the idea that russia is the most divided nation, the vision of ethnic identity. All these things are incredibly destabilizing, and youve seen in western european embrace of some of these ideological points by the far right. So again, this is a genie being let out of the box here. David . Until putin bailed us out on the chemical weapons issue, russias role was nothing but negative and destructive t. Wasnt blocking the resolutions, it was selling and providing arms and weapons for assad to slaughter syrians. Russia was guilty aiding and abetting that slaughter, that massacre. And so russia has, in my view, been so counter to our interests in syria, and the chemical weapons
Some of the fossil fuel areas. And ill suggest an area that my republican colleagues on the energy and Commerce Committee criticized during a Committee Meeting not too long ago and that was the Carbon Capture and sequestration. Compare the return on investment right now provided in this bill for the multimilliondollar amount were putting into Carbon Capture that has not proven that is not proven compared to what we could achieve on a return and investment in Energy Efficiency for our neighbors, for our businesses and for jobs. So therefore this amendment will shift a little bit, not all, from those technologies and put it into a place where it works, Energy Efficiency. I appreciate Ranking Member kapturs vision. She understands that this is our future, this is a job creator. I appreciate her work and chairman simpsons work on the appropriations bill. I ask for an ray vote on the cass an aye vote on the castor amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. The chair the gentlelady y
If we sacrifice the future, do we really take care of all the past cleanup . We hardly do whats necessary, even with current funding. And so i think its a perfect example of where the sequestration process is so counterproductive and moves america backwards. We have very imperfect choices here, and actually very dangerous choices that we are being forced to make. I think the majority would be much better suited to come back to us with a budget that allows us to do the job that the energy and water subcommittee is charged with doing. We simply cant try to solve the problem internal through the resources weve been given. Its an impossibility, and so somebodys going to be going to lose. Im sure those that came up washington. Ies in the people who are getting water assistance, they just lost money. They got no lobby here. They got none of those people from the various Nuclear Sites to come in here and lobby for them, and yet they just lost out in a prior amendment. They have a right to an
Billion of american taxpayer money for something, airplanes, supplies, support equipment, trucks, unspecified, unknown to be used by one of the most corrupt governments excuse me, the most corrupt government in the world. 2. 6 billion of american taxpayer money for something not specified, to be used somewhere, somehow, i suspect more likely in some bank account in bahrain. What are we doing . What justification is there for 2. 6 billion of additional expenditure for the Afghan National army . Have we lost our minds . No. We are just going to lose our money. What is going on here . What are we doing . What is this all about . This money should never be spent for some unspecified purpose. We take our department of defense and we hold them to a very tight account. We dont let them spend money without a contract, without reviews by the Inspector General, reviews by our committee. But heres 2. 6 billion unspecified. Oh, mr. Car decide, use it wisely. Cars eyed, use it wisely. I reserve the