Normal we need a knowledgeable representative we perform a valuable intense but unfortunately constrained fact finding admission we need someone to answer questions like what efforts were made to go through our staff persons email for records we need someone that knows the answer like that this is a request we need someone knowledgeable about a complaint im mindful the possibility of this violation reaching the xhoiks is the rarest of the 3 am i wrong on that regard. They seem to be usually included in other violations. Again, this is a scenario by the time the results its referred to ethnics weve admonished this is not working we need the inclines so you can tells you more and send someone that knows not only an authorized representative well have experience where someone comes and says we conducted a use but that is an unauthorized representative that is option 3 but not suite our concerns with the investigation of the complaint and everyone comes to the issues at play and little vio
That pushes down Interest Rates in many parts of the world that spills over to the United States so there are many channels that it affects the u. S. Outlook but all in all two factors those into account while there are risks positive and negative stemming from Global Development we still think that the risks for the u. S. Outlook to have sufficient a strong growth by consumers and businesses that the recovery looks to be on solid kid ground but just as i mentioned in my testimony to have day strong growth to analyze the factors to impact spending we california not as strong as as we just had but nevertheless growth that factors the global consideration. But they will affect your decision. They will. With the comments to be sure that we deal with currency manipulation but that appears from one to another. Monetary policy oriented toward domestic goals like price stability or price stability and maximum employment, this is a very valid use of a domestic tool for a domestic purpose. It i
; is that right . And a yes. I think that is worth clarifying and having read former chairpersons hope memorandum coming her, she makes it clear better than i do the issue why am my response to 3 is garbled its a bit of a in his normal we need a knowledgeable representative we perform a valuable intense but unfortunately constrained fact finding admission we need someone to answer questions like what efforts were made to go through our staff persons email for records we need someone that knows the answer like that this is a request we need someone knowledgeable about a complaint im mindful the possibility of this violation reaching the xhoiks is the rarest of the 3 am i wrong on that regard. They seem to be usually included in other violations. Again, this is a scenario by the time the results its referred to ethnics weve admonished this is not working we need the inclines so you can tells you more and send someone that knows not only an authorized representative well have experience w
Language but generally, if theres some factor that sort of overriding we contemplate ahead of time that wouldnt tie the commissioners hands. Okay im not opposed to that you know i dont think it is necessary but as a guidepost i think it would be valuable so then we would say we would change sufficient to insufficient and add including but not limited to in option 2 . How does that sound to the task force yeah. I think it sound much better im conscious of the fact you know i dont have the task force behind me right now but i think that is an improvement certainly. Is there a motion oh, i guess i should. I move that we adapt option 2 as amended, 3 and 4 as written. Second. Public comment . All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Hearing none that motion passes option 3. Have i got the right page . Okay. So the task force suggested option 1 regarding authorized representatives ; is that right . And a yes. I think that is worth clarifying and having read former chairpersons hope memorandum comin
But other commissioners want to weigh in or one potential answer i dont think it gets to our broader point but we could have for option 2 not limited to that language but generally, if theres some factor that sort of overriding we contemplate ahead of time that wouldnt tie the commissioners hands. Okay im not opposed to that you know i dont think it is necessary but as a guidepost i think it would be valuable so then we would say we would change sufficient to insufficient and add including but not limited to in option 2 . How does that sound to the task force yeah. I think it sound much better im conscious of the fact you know i dont have the task force behind me right now but i think that is an improvement certainly. Is there a motion oh, i guess i should. I move that we adapt option 2 as amended, 3 and 4 as written. Second. Public comment . All in favor, say i. I. Opposed . Hearing none that motion passes option 3. Have i got the right page . Okay. So the task force suggested option