Skip to main content

tv   Newsmakers Rep Patrick Mc Henry  CSPAN  May 12, 2019 6:00pm-6:30pm EDT

6:00 pm
iraq war. then the secretaries of the army and air force outline their priorities for those military branches. and the senate at 3:00 p.m. eastern to continue work on judicial nominations. >> our guest on "newsmakers" this week is representative mchenry of north carolina. he returns after a long hiatus. he is a republican representing the 10th district from the charlotte suburbs to asheville north carolina. he's the senior most republican on the finance committee. rep. mchenry: thank you for having me. our reporters will be asking the questions, from "the wall street journal" and a federal reserve reporter for "the new york times." glad to have you here. you're up first with questions. >> we are curious to hear about your take on the recent fed nominations.
6:01 pm
both steven saw moore and herman cain has loated for these jobs but not actually nominated. i'm also curious to hear you talk about what they would like to see out of future nominees. rep. mchenry: the senate is in the nominee business, and we in the house are not. i do not spend much of my time obsessing about the nominating process. i watch it like most people in washington. pretty closely. more closely within my jurisdiction. those two offerings from the white house, they represent a different view out of the white house which is the polar opposite of the obama administration view. president obama put labor eaders on the fed board of governors. this was an attempt to balance a different direction. my senate colleagues look at the
6:02 pm
nominees' individual backgrounds. i do this it is interesting, the akeup of the fed board of governors and it is important to have folks willing to stay in long-term and look deeply at these issues. the fed, while they have great data, they are still in the people business. and the people on the board of governors make balance sheet decisions, and it is more about intellect and feel than data on any given day. that is a question of policy how to construct and limit the decision-making. i look at it as another part of the process of an interesting senate and nominating process, different than it has been in my previous years of service. >> to follow up on that, when you are talking to your colleagues at the senate, do you think they should be
6:03 pm
prioritizing nominees who do not risk politicizing the fed? that was of major criticism of these nominees, they have close ties to the white house, the fed a apolitical body so that raised eyebrows. rep. mchenry: i do not spend much time thinking about it. i have enough on my plate before analyzing the nominees. i think the president should 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. the broader question for the federal reserve is what the last president and every previous president has gotten their nominees on the board of governors, that has had a long-term effect. the important thing is the independence of the fed, to set interest rate policy and ensure
6:04 pm
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. i look at monetary policy and our balance sheets, i know they are in independent agency, independent of politics on capitol hill or the white house, but i recognize regulatory authorities, and that is where i spend my time looking at the fed. those regulations can have as much of an impact interest rate setting as from the federal reserve, and those areas, the hill has necessary and proper oversight in a forceful and meaningful way. wherein, you can see interest rates and balance sheet questions we have given to them to be independent of the hill. >> given that independence, does it mean the president or any
6:05 pm
high-ranking official shouldn't be giving explicit public to the fed chairman and otentially threatening their job prospect? rep. mchenry: the president tweets what he thinks and feels, that is different than previous presidents. some people like it, some people do not. the president has made his decision. what he is expressing is what every president has either privately expressed or quite in the dark of night expressed in their diary, as we found out over the last hundred years. what he is expressing is the same as what fdr was expressing and every president since then effectively. their interest rate setting, their decision-making, their and sis of the economy everything else. this president is going to publicly express his frustrations, and that is his communication style. what i know, and we agree upon
6:06 pm
in a bipartisan way, not erfectly, but on capitol hill there is an understanding that of ave legislated control our monetary policy out of the ands of daily politics into longer-range thinking. we have had push and pull oversight, which is good. this oversight also gives nuance and framework for what the fed does in terms of regulatory policy. that is fine. we are currently in the midst of loud politics, and both the left and right, they see policy over the last 10 years as a frustrating thing, massive intervention in our economy. you are seeing more public expression from everyone on fed policy. i do not think that will calm down with a balance sheet as large as the fed has for quite some time. >> to ask about a different oversight, the president is
6:07 pm
suing deutsche bank and capital one to keep them from releasing financial information -- to complying with democrats. do you think that lawsuit will be successful, and do you have any concerns about the precedent that would set in terms of congressional oversight in the future? rep. mchenry: this is a risky proposition. it is a risky proposition because as congress, the first branch of government, we are a coequal branch of government, there is proper congressional oversight of the executive branch. and executive branch agencies. proper oversight to get documentation to make law. the push and pull about this issue, the legal issue at stake is deeply problematic. if you go to the courts and they rule against congress, that can have a negative effect for our branch of government. i am concerned about it.
6:08 pm
i have another concern which is 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 legislation, it is about getting something the president was not legally required to provide. you comply with the financial disclosure regimes such as it is for presidential candidates. and he did not comply with the tradition of letting his tax returns be made public. that is a tradition, a modern tradition, not a requirement of law. he complied with the law, but there is the obsession with his business dealings, and so a lot of these requests go to the third point which is the mueller report.
6:09 pm
that mueller team spent an enormous amount of time on the dealings.'s bank they came to conclusion. expressed.en the mueller team, how deeply hey went into this should be the better understanding than getting documents from these things that about have already been queried by counsel that has spent $30 million to get to the bottom f the question of the 2016 election and the president's business dealings and how they could interact. a deeply is is problematic approach and that is hy i have been skeptical of this type of request. >> regulations? >> i would love to ask about regulations. you have obviously been on the
6:10 pm
front lines of urging the regulatory agencies to implement dodd frank reg relief provisions. spurred us, a, what that, why do you think this needs to proceed more quickly. whether you think there is any risk that implementing could risk quickly fostering some kind of financial instabilities within the system? rep. mchenry: the heart of the question is what we passed in the last congress, which was 10 years after dodd frank was signed into law, we passed senate bill 2155 which is now law which rebalanced dodd frank. egregious most aspects of dodd frank and i would say sanded them down. the threshold for being considered a significant and, cial institution therefore, having higher regulations, that was raised and
6:11 pm
bipartisan agreement on that. 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, got a wide bipartisan and signed house into law. it is a bipartisan concept and process, and now the regulators need to move quickly to provide relief for community financial institutions, which is the focus of this change. big banks are under the same regulatory challenges as under dodd frank. these were agreements we could reach for the smaller institutions. we have a partisan understanding because we see the stats. we have lost a third of 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. both urban and rural are
6:12 pm
in a similar his way. we see a community bank or institution merging or going out of business. we are trying to give that relief for the smaller institutions to get back to the business they should be in, community lending. if they get back into that, they can survive the changing marketplace. that was the focus. in the construct of our regulatory system, moderate in its effects overall, but significant to the smaller institutions. it will be helpful to our economy in the long run and not a component of the next financial crisis, if there were to be one. >> your read is that it is taking too long? rep. mchenry: yes. think is the hold-up? rep. mchenry: the whole regulatory process is slow. i am encouraging the regulators to move at a better pace because the next presidential election
6:13 pm
is already in the media, and we are seeing that takeover politics on the hill. i am saying for the regulators to move quickly before the politics of a presidential election dominates all of washington that we cannot 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 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 force against inaction and
6:14 pm
slowness, against skepticism, and drive forward and 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, and provide enough relief so they can continuously go on. >> speaking of big banks, let's talk about wells fargo. you have been critical of them, and they have not seems to right the ship. you talked about the role of marketplace and the and what they have to say versus
6:15 pm
does.ongress what congress does specifically, your committee, 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 strong reportage out of the "l.a. times." hat is what motivate the regulators to act. there is necessary oversight to look at the regulators and say, why does it take a los angeles time story to get off your hide and get to act? why did you find out about it from reporters and not the regulatory institution? what is this institution doing to their customers on an ongoing basis? why have the regulators continue to fine them, and not give them any out for their bad actions? or a path forward out of the
6:16 pm
consent decrees they are under. we brought wells fargo forward, we had the ceo and chairman testify. you saw bipartisan decision because they are failing to comply. that is proper oversight from congress. it is not pro-business or antibusiness, it is proconsumer, 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, so those three sectors, lawmakers, 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 drive this
6:17 pm
conversation. there will be more work to be done because it is a large institution, they have yet to make the turn they need to, even though you have a second executive in two years. >> do you expect they will be back before the committee? >> 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 can make those decisions. we agree in some areas and disagree in others. we can function as a committee and try to find consensus where we can amidst the bigger and the issues day-to-day legs can still occur. i think that is positive. >> one of the big fights is over disaster aid for states affected by various storms and floods. the president has more recently requested money for humanitarian
6:18 pm
assistance at the border. do you have concerns about trying to meld those 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 open, and fund disasters, keep the government open and funding what is necessary at the border. because of the humanitarian issues 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. 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
6:19 pm
republicans if they want a bill enacted into law. point, they make the did not get a veto override number. talk eed to come back and to republicans and let's get down to bipartisan cooperation make sure we take of the national disaster and the border. >> the government is funded until october 1. you don't think this will not be resolved until much later? including the disaster aid money. rep. mchenry: my hope is it is dealt with before then. it is up to the willingness of the democrats in the speaker to come to the table and have republican cooperation to get a bipartisan bill out of the house. >> you mentioned working with work on n waters to bipartisan issues. one of those you brought up was the potential hearing of the fed balance sheet, which you noted is operationally independent of
6:20 pm
congress. i am curious what your goal was suggesting that hearing? rep. mchenry: this is a serious issue, this is the second largest -- there are two portfolios the 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 important we have that conversation. the fed, when they announced about interest rates, that became the news. the real news is that the end of the year they're going to stop sheet. off their balance why.nt to understand
6:21 pm
their long-term economic view that has not been directly media outlets.y 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. >> 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. is that decision borne out of government deficits long-term and debt long-term? is it what our economic activity looks like globally?
6:22 pm
what is the view between the eu economy, the question of brexit, chinese debt load, how all those things drive the conversation on the fed board of governors. the fed meeting minutes, we will know why they made this decision. 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. >> next 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? do you see some reshuffling, and what are the prospects? rep. mchenry: it has been quite a primary. this is a neighboring district to mine. it has been interesting to watch.
6:23 pm
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. the two leading candidates, one is a realtor, one is a state senator, they have gotten the most media attention. if the state senator avoids a runoff, or the realtor, then you have an earlier election date. that means you have a normalized turnout situation across the district. if you have a later election date, charlotte local elections are held that day, and charlotte has more democratic votes, therefore it is 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
6:24 pm
on the potential outcome. >> where do you 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 seats. i chaired candidate recruitment so i have seen how this works up close. susan brooks is leading the effort. doing a fantastic job. the congresswoman of new york is doing a focused job on not just recruiting female candidates, but also ensuring they are connected more broadly in a way that has not been about an effort among house republicans. what susan and lisa are doing our great additives and helpful
6:25 pm
to republicans broadly. >> that is it for our time. you will have to come back more frequently. rep. mchenry: thank you for having me. i enjoyed the conversation. >> you are watching c-span's "newsmakers." congressman mchenry, the lead republican on the financial services committee. christina peterson, our guest. to start with nt you on the working of the committee because it's maxine waters is one of the focal points of trying to financial records of the trump family and i'm wondering about what level of working relationship is on that as a result? >> we do see them working flood r on issues like insurance. clearly they are going their separate ways on the oversight the trump administration. the congressman's information over the clash of the subpoenas was very interesting. he did acknowledge there is some risk for lawmakers if the courts
6:26 pm
that gainst them that could have some long-term negative impact in terms of oversight.ity to do but at the same time he said that he felt this was sort of a personal vendetta against the president. you see that sort of attention i think amongst a lot of that ican lawmakers they're worried that this could end up limiting their ability to future ight on presidents. >> we're strategic a lot of these themes about the workings onal maybe between the branches of government surface on capitol hill. on what level ke of working relationship congress an have when this extra layer of scrutiny of the trump administration is happening? > yeah, it's an interesting question. i think the trump administration in congress licans and those who have been outspoken like representative interesting really position. even for a long time or just recently talked about the fed in ways that the president
6:27 pm
is directly at odds with. he was just telling us that he is really interested n looking at the sort of the size of the fed's balance sheet and the president has been very, about wanting that balance sheet to remain big. for a return lled to quantitative easing. this underlines the back and that is going on here. the president isn't always the traditional republican. more traditional republicans on the hill are sometimes left really having to walk a fine communications. >> the congressman made the point that everything is about election.n the next so how does this position the republican party as it seeks to reclaim the house of representatives? >> well, they are certainly doing a lot to try to increase and a more f women diverse candidate pool and he talked about that. traditionally the challenge has been really getting those republican women through the so that's a really interesting question to watch as
6:28 pm
week ande primary next then as those start coming in congresswoman se stepanek has made that her focus the women through the primaries. we don't have a lot of examples of that being successful yet. about is m thinking how they position themselves is-a-vis policy standpoint, vis-a-vis the administration and the president, president point you were just making. what does it mean to be a standing as you're for re-election? >> yeah, i think it's going to be really interesting. has e hand, the president handed these republicans perhaps the best talking point a very e, which is strong economy. the trump tax cuts and the have ng package certainly fed into stronger growth last move up in a real gdp, what we had been seeing before that actually happened as on the back of that spending. if you see any of that sustained election, that's going to be a real tell for these republicans.
6:29 pm
it's an easy thing to talk about that is not divisive, who jobs.t like growth and the problem is if it's a fiscal sugar high and it wears off election. the we have the divisions we have been talking about and weaker growth to contend it. >> it's hard to keep the president focused on the economy. good hen he is seeing economic numbers, any number of other fights are popping up on a daily basis that the attention lawmakers try and gets focused on instead. even though republicans would ove to be talking about the economy all the time, they don't manage to do that. our time.all thank you for being our guest for the first time and thanks back.oming >> thank you, thank you. >> former vicetomorrow president joe biden makes a campaign stop in new hampshire pizza shop. several polls have him

31 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on