>> the c-span bus stop in middle and high schools across the country to meet an award the winners of our studentcam video opposition. we were in colorado springs colorado with comcast where we met with first prize high school west winners christian granados and gabriel rice from william j palmer high school. >> it did not take long in inearch to find disparities voting rights especially with native americans living on reservations. that one was kind of a shock considering we have been coexisting for a very long time and they still struggle with voting rights and gerrymandering seems like such an outdated thing but it still exists and it is still a problem. those are things we just wanted to focus on. , goo watch winning entries to studentcam.org.

>> our guest on newsmakers this week is congressman patrick mchenry. welcome back. a republican represented the state's 10th district from the charlotte suburbs asheville north carolina and the seniormost republican on the financial services committee in the house of representatives. glad to have you here. our two reporters will be asking questions. christina peterson returns this week and eunice my -- you're up first with questions. aboutare curious to hear your take on the recent fed nominations. we saw stephen moore and hermann kaine floated for these jobs. i'm curious to hear you talk about what you would like to see out of future nominees. is achenry: the senate

nominee business and we in the house are not. i don't spend much of my time obsessing about the nominee process. i watch it like most people in washington, pretty closely. much more closely with my committee of jurisdiction. those two offerings from the white house represent a different view out of the white house which is sort of a polar opposite of the obama administration's view. president obama put labor leaders on the fed board of governors. this was an attempt to balance that out in a different direction. i leave it to my senate colleagues to look at the details of individual nominees backgrounds. i think it is interesting, the makeup of the fed board of governors. it is important we have folks willing to stay in the long-term . still, while they

have great data, they are still in the people business and the people on the board of governors did not make these balance sheet decisions. it is more about intellect and feel that it is necessarily about data on any given day. which is then the push and pull of policy how you limit the fed's functionality and decision-making. to me i look at it as another part of the process of an interesting senate and nominating process, much different than it has been in previous years of service. jeanna: just to follow-up on that quickly, when you are talking to your colleagues at the senate, do you think they should be prioritizing nominees who don't risk politicizing the fed? that was a criticism of these nominees. close ties to the white house. the fed is in.

in a political body. -- is in theory and a political body. rep. mchenry: i don't spend much time thinking about it. shouldink the president get his nominees considered by the senate. i think the senate should be a better functioning body and how they process nominations up or down whatever the outcome may be. the broader question for the federal reserve for me, the last president and every previous president has gotten nominees on the board of governors and that has had long-term effect. the important thing is the independence of the fed. the fed interest rate policy and to ensure the value of our money. we are the reserve currency for the world. we need to maintain that. the credibility of the fed goes right at that. when i look at monetary policy

and balance sheets i know they are an independent agency independent of the politics. we given the regulatory authorities and that is where i spend most of my time looking at the fed because those regulations can have as much of an impact as interest rate setting has from the federal reserve. has proper oversight where inningful way you could see their interest rate setting their balance sheet questions. we've given to them to be independent of the authorities of the hill. christina: given that independence does that mean the president or high-ranking officials should not be giving explicit public guidance to the fed chairman and potentially threatening their job prospects? rep. mchenry: the president tweets what he thinks and feels. that is different from previous presidents. some people like it, some people

don't. i hear quite a bit about it but the president has made his decision on this. what the president is expressing is what every president has either privately expressed or in the dark of night expressed in their diary as we found out over the last 100 years. what he is expressing is the same as what fdr was expressing thenvery president since effectively on their interest rate setting and decision-making, the economy, whether it is right or wrong and everything else. this president is willing to publicly express his private frustrations. i think that is the nature of his communication style. what we agree upon, not perfectly, but on capitol hill i think there's an understanding we have legislated control of monetary policy out of the hands of daily politics into

longer-range thinking. we have had push and pull. oversight, which is good. the push and pull of oversight is nuance and framework for what the fed does in terms of regulatory policy. we are currently in the midst of quite loud politics both from the left and the right they see fit policy over the last 10 years as a frustrating thing. you are seeing more public expression from everyone on fed policy. i don't think that will come down with a balance sheet as large as the fed currently has. kristina: the president has sued deutsche bank and capital one to prevent them from complying with subpoenas. do you think it will be successful and if so do you have

concerns about what kind of precedent that would set in terms of limiting congressional oversight in the future? rep. mchenry: this is a risky congresson because as -- the first branch of government. we are a coequal branch of government. proper there is oversight over the executive branch and executive branch agencies. proper oversight to make law. the push and pull here about this issue, the legal issue at stake, is deep and problematic. that can have a long-term negative affect for our branch of government. i'm concerned about it. i also have another concern which is the obsession with the president as a person. his family and his businesses could curtail our coequal status in the courts.

the request for this documentation is not about proper legislating. it is about getting something the president was not legally required to provide. he has complied with the financial disclosure regime such as it is her presidential candidates and he did not comply with tradition of letting his tax returns be made public. that is a tradition, a modern tradition not a requirement of law. so he complied with the law, but there is the of session with his business dealings, and so a lot of these requests go to the third point which is the mueller report. that mueller team spent an enormous amount of time, they conclusion that has been expressed. i think the mueller team and how

deeply they went into this should be -- the better understanding than getting documents from these institutions about things that have been queried by a special counsel that has spent $30 million to get to the bottom of the question of the 2016 election and the president's business dealings and how they could interact. this is a deeply problematic approach, and that is why i have been skeptical of this request. >> i would love to ask about regulations. you have obviously been on the front lines of urging the regulatory agencies to implement dodd frank relief permissions, -- relief provisions. i'm curious why you think this

needs receive more quickly and whether you think there is any risk that implementing these things quickly could risk fostering financial instabilities within the system. rep. mchenry: the heart of the question is the bipartisan bill we passed last congress which was 10 years after dodd frank was signed into law, we passed senate bill 2155 which is now law that rebalance dodd frank, took the most egregious aspects of dodd frank and sanded them down. the threshold for being considered a significant financial institution and therefore higher regulations, that was raised, and there is a bipartisan agreement. a number of things that can form with the sanding off of the rough edges of dodd frank, that bill got two thirds vote in the senate, a wide

senate, a wide bipartisan support in the house. we have lost a third ofept and community banks in this country over the last 10 years. a third of them. that is a significant thing. it is devastating for local communities. urban and

urban and rural are experiencing this in some way. we see a community bank or institution merging or going out i am saying these regulators move quickly before the politics of the residential election so

dominate all of washington and we can't get anything done. get as much done as we can in the time we are given, and faithfully implement this bipartisan law. >> from a regulators perspective, politics should not be hugely important. it is kind of a matter of rulemaking. why are you worried about the political process interfering? rep. mchenry: it interferes with everything. as much as i would like to put blinders on and get to work, that is not how washington works. that hold up, the political cycle, i want to make sure there is a countervailing force against inaction and slowness against skepticism, and try , -- and drive forward to get relief for these institutions. we talk about politics, but the effect is what i am trying to get. the effect of these institutions

is so significant, and that is what i want to stay focused on. those people in my community that need more choices for how they do their banking, for community institutions to stay in business with this additional regulatory burden put on them, in business with this additional regulatory burden put on them, and provide enough relief so they can continuously go on. host: we have 10 minutes. speaking of big banks, let's talk about wells fargo. critical ofn very them, and they have not seemed to right the ship. you talked about the role of shareholders and what they have to say versus what congress does. what does congress specifically, what is your thought on wells fargo? rep. mchenry: this was bipartisan oversight, that is what it looks like. you have a company not following the law or regulation, had been fined by every regulator in a short period of time based off

of really strong reportage out " is what.a. times motivated the regulators to act. there is necessary oversight to look at the regulators and say, "l.a. times'"e a story to get off your hide and get to act? why did you find out about it from reporters and not the regulatory institution? second question, what is this institution doing to their customers on an ongoing basis? if regulators continue to fine them, and not give them any out for their bad actions? or a path forward out of the dissent decrees they are currently under? we brought wells fargo forward. we had the ceo and chairman testified. you saw bipartisan decision because they are failing to comply. so, that is proper oversight from congress.

and it is not pro-business or anti-business. it is pro--consumer, pro-competition, pro-marketplace . while shareholders have the say for the institution, our regulators and laws must be complied with. this institution was not complying with those things. the shareholders have to account for that, and therefore, those lawmakers,rs, regulators, and their shareholders have driven action out of this very important national coverage. i think you can see that as a good act by congress to step forward and to drive this conversation. there will be more work to be done because it is a large institution, they have yet to make white the turn they need to turn theyde quite the need to, even though you have a second executive in two years. i do not have the gavel. i have my opinions about the

committee action, i have laid that out with chairman waters on what i think would be the right set of hearings and legislation we need for the congress. she has the gavel, and therefore, can make those decisions. we agree in some areas and disagree in others. but we can still function as a committee, and try to find consensus where we can amidst bigger medical issues and day-to-day legislation can still occur. and i think that is positive. host: one of the big fights is over disaster aid for states affected by various storms and floods. the president has more recently also requesting money for humanitarian assistance at the border. do you have concerns about those two,eld considering how immigration has been of late? rep. mchenry: when you have a compromised product, you have a compromise. we need to keep the government

a fund disasters, and keep the government open and funding what is necessary at the border. because of the humanitarian there, the wall and the president's request on the border security measure, which i support. i think there is a bipartisan deal to be had absent the more polarizing elements from the left and the right. that is what tends to happen around government funding measures. the vote on disaster, this disaster bill the democrats who , hold the gavel's in the house, and the speaker will have to work something out with republicans if they want a bill enacted into law. they did not get a veto override number, and therefore, they need to come back talk to republicans to get down to bipartisan cooperation to take care of these national disasters

and the border. host: the government is funded until october 1. do you think this will not be resolved until much later? rep. mchenry: my hope is it is dealt with before then. and it is really up to the willingness, the democrats, and the speaker to come to the table, and have republican cooperation to get a bipartisan bill out of the house. mentioned earlier working with chairman waters to work on bipartisan issues. one of those you brought up was the potential hearing of the fed 's balance sheet, which you noted is operationally independent of congress. fed really gets to run that part of monetary policy. i'm curious what your goal was suggesting that hearing about

the fed's balance sheet. rep. mchenry: this is a serious issue. there are portfolios the two government owns. one is the fed balance sheet, and other is fannie mae and freddie mac and their balance sheet. we have had no hearings about those two issues this year. it is really important we have those conversations. it is consequential to have a balance sheet. the fed -- when they announced about interest rates, that became the news. the real news out of that is that at the end of the year, they will stop selling off their balance sheet. i do not understand why. their long-term economic view that has not been directly answered in many media outlets , and even with the new transparency of the fed, and what powell has attempted to do, which is built on yellen and bernanke's effort of the open public posture. i think we need to get deeper on

why they are stopping the balance sheet runoff that was what they agreed upon two years ago, and has now been halted. it is a consequential decision without much public clarity. host: that is interesting. are you not in favor of the fed holding a large balance sheet? rep. mchenry: i do not know why they are making that decision as a policy maker. if that decision borne out of government deficits long-term and debt long-term? is it a question of what economic activity looks like globally? what is the view between the e.u. economy, the question of brexit, the chinese debt load, and how all those things drive the conversation on the fed board of governors.

when we have the fed meeting minutes, we will know why they made this decision. but in the short run, we need some understanding as a policy maker what this means for the american economy and consumer next year and the following year. host: we are running out of time, but we have a political question. >> next week week is the primary in north carolina's ninth district where we have seen quite a bit of chaos. where do you think the gop is at the end of this? you know? do you see some reshuffling, and what do you think the prospects are? rep. mchenry: it has been quite a primary. this is a neighboring district to mine. and so, it has been interesting to watch. i have not endorsed any candidates. what happens with this primary will dictate whether or not republicans are in a competitive situation for the special election. , onewo leading candidates

is a realtor, one is a state senator. they have gotten the most media attention. and if the state senator avoids avoidsf, or the realtor a runoff, then you have an earlier election date. that earlier election date means you have a normalized turn situation across the district. if you have a later election date, the democratic governor chose that date because charlotte local elections are held that day, and charlotte has more democratic votes, therefore -- -- it isdvantage an advantage to the democratic candidate. there are a lot of equations that went into the timing of the special election by the democratic governor in our state. it does have real consequences on the potential outcome. >> very broadly speaking, set expectations for republicans chances of taking back the house majority next year? rep. mchenry: i am optimistic. our candidate recruitment is more diverse than previous election cycles. we have more interest in these

competitive races. i chaired candidate recruitment in previous election cycles, so i have seen how this works up close. our congressman of new york is doing a focused job on not just recruiting female candidates, women candidates, but also ensuring they are connected much more broadly in a way that has not been an active outreach effort among house republicans. what susan and lisa are doing our great additives and helpful to republicans broadly. >> that is it for our time. you will have to come back a lot more frequently. rep. mchenry: thank you for having me. i enjoyed the conversation. >> you are watching c-span's "newsmakers."

congressman patrick mchenry. i want to start with you on the working with the committee. chairman maxine waters is one of the full poll trying to get the financial records of the trump family. i am wondering what level of working relationship as a result? >> we see them working together on issues like flood insurance, but clearly, they are going there separate ways. i thought the congressman's answer on the clash of subpoenas was very interesting because he did acknowledge that if the courts rule against them, it could have a long-term negative impact in terms of their ability to do oversight. but at the same time he said he , thought this was a personal vendetta against the president. and you see that sort of tension

amongst a lot of republican lawmakers, that they are worried this could end up limiting their ability to do oversight on future presidents. host: we are seeing a lot about the workings between the branches of government, what is your take on the level they can have when this extra layer of scrutiny on the trump administration? >> yeah, it is an interesting question. i think the trump administration has put republicans in congress, and especially those who have been outspoken, like representative mchenry, in an interesting position. he has for a long time and even recently, talked about the fed in ways that the president is directly at odds with. he was telling us he is interested in looking at the size of the balance sheet in the longer run. the president has been very , very vocal about wanting that balance sheet to remain big.

returneven called for a to quantitative easing. i think that underlines what is going on here where the president is not a traditional republican, and so the more , traditional republicans on the hill are having to walk a fine line on communication. so, how does this position the republican party seeks to reclaim the house of representatives? >> well, they are certainly doing a lot to increase the number of women and a more diverse candidate pool. he talked about that. the challenge has been getting those republican women through the primaries. that is a really interesting question to watch as we see the primary next week, and as though start coming in next year, because it was a focused to get women to the primaries but we do not have a lot of examples of that being successful yet.

the: i'm thinking about policy standpoint. the point you were making. what does it mean to be a republican if you are up for reelection? >> yeah, i think it will be really interesting. i guess on one hand, the president has handed republicans the best talking point available, which is a very strong economy. the trump tax cuts and spending package have fed into stronger growth. we saw a move up in gdp relative to what we had been seeing. it actually happened as expected. if you see that sustained into the election, that will be an easy thing for republicans to talk about. who does not like growth and jobs? the problem will be if this proves to be a fiscal sugar high and wears off. then you have the divisions we are talking about and weaker growth to contend with.

>> and it is hard to keep the president focused on the economy. even when he is seeing good economic numbers, the attention of the country and lawmakers get focused on other things instead. even though republicans would love to talk about the economy all the time, they do not manage to do that. host: that is it for our time. thank you for being our guests. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] tonight on the communicators -- >> it is amazing the pushback by our closest allies and other countries around the world that are saying you have not given us evidence of cyber security wrongdoing. about u.s. -- about

the u.s. to not use other country's equipment. to be an advocate for safer americans. bestaying we need the technology and the ability to complete -- compete. i have never been able to say -- -- been told what to say what not to say. >> watch the communicators tonight on c-span two. who are planning to bring you live coverage of former vice president joe biden at a campaign stop in hampton, new hampshire in 15 minutes. unfortunately, we are having technical issues in her family with our signal. you are recording it and we will have it later for you.