INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”

Guest: Representative Kay Granger (R-TX)

Reporters: Todd Gillman, Dallas Morning News & Martin Kady,

The Politico

Moderator: C-SPAN

TAPE DATE: Thursday, May 13, 2008

AIR DATE/TIME: SUNDAY, May 18, 2008 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET

Please use with attribution to C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”

NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network

Please contact John Cardarelli in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at

202-626-8797 or jcardarelli@c-span.org for questions

© NCSC

Copyrighted material: use with attribution only

PETER SLEN, HOST: Representative Kay Granger is the vice chairman of the Republican Conference. She’s a Republican from Texas. And she is our guest this week on “Newsmakers.”

Here to question her, Todd Gillman of the Dallas Morning News, and Martin Kady of The Politico.

Congresswoman Granger, thank you for being with us.

REP. KAY GRANGER, R-TEXAS, REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE CO-CHAIR: Thank you. I’m glad to join you.

SLEN: Three special elections recently. Republicans lost all three in seemingly safe Republican districts.

Two hundred and thirty-six Democrats to 199 Republicans in the House. And all indications are it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Your conference met this week to discuss election strategy.

Have the Republicans reached the bottom? Or is it going to get worse?

GRANGER: Well, I hope it’s not going to get worse. We certainly hope not. We introduced an agenda yesterday, I did, at a press conference, an agenda talking directly to families, and making the appeal that we are relevant, and we have something to say. And we’re listening very closely in dealing with issues that are real to people.

We’ve had a rough time. There’s no doubt about it. We’ve got work to do, but we’ve still got time to do it.

We were reminded this morning that the Contract with America on that election year wasn’t introduced until September 27th. You know, here we are in May. So we’re going to have to work hard, and we’re willing to do that.

SLEN: Martin Kady.

MARTIN KADY, CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT, “THE POLITICO”: Thank you, congresswoman.

What in general do you think has gone wrong with the Republican brand that you lost the former speaker’s seat in Illinois, lost a special election in Louisiana – and lost a very Republican district in northwestern Mississippi there? And where do you think the party went wrong that it’s lost these safe Republican seats this spring?

GRANGER: We disappointed people. And we saw that in the last national election. We have been trying to earn our way back.

People are war weary, and see that that war started on our watch. And there’s some just general angst among people.

I talked about the agenda that we introduced this week. One of the things we have to do is address that angst and that concern that comes from families, small businesses – people that are trying to get through the day, get through the week and march ahead.

So, I think that we’ve got to earn our brand back – that’s a common term that’s being used – but to make sure that people believe in us again, and know that we are listening, and we are going to act, and we can lead.

TODD GILLMAN, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, “DALLAS MORNING NEWS”: Congresswoman, I’m wondering. It wasn’t just the Republicans lost these three districts. The NRCC, the Republicans’ election arm for the House, also bet very heavily. It spent, I believe the number is $3 million, combined on these, has very little money left over.

How do you dig yourself out of the hole? Do you need to have a leadership shakeup?

Now, obviously, you’re a member of the leadership. So, I would expect that you’d say that you should not be shaken up.

But, I mean, does the NRCC need new leadership? Would that make a difference?

GRANGER: Well, I’m going to go back to what you said at the beginning about how this occurred. And there’s no doubt that Republicans are at a disadvantage in being able to raise money, when the money we have – when we start out with a debt.

But, you know, there’s an old saying. Don’t fight yesterday’s war. Well, we shouldn’t fight yesterday’s elections, either. And particularly when you have a problem with money, then money doesn’t always mean victory.

We’ve got to convince people they’ve got to show up to vote. We have to break through with the message that said, as I said, we’re listening. And we have to fight a battle on the ground.

So, a lot of it is going back to our base, and then again, reaching out to those independents, who in past elections voted a split ticket, but voted with us as members of Congress, and say, “We want you.”

I’ve had an outreach that I will continue, and have for some time, of reaching out to women and saying as Republicans, “We want your vote, and here’s what we’ll do.”

Again, I go back to the agenda for families. And what we did, we recognize the change in families. And most of the change in that has to do with women and their roles. Sixty percent of women with children six and under are in the work force today. So, what we used to think about a traditional family, is a traditional family today, is both parents working.

We’re saying, “We recognize that. Here’s how we can help you.”

We’ve always been the party of small business. And a lot of our agenda had to do with encouraging small business, believing in America, believing in our entrepreneurship and developing products and programs.

And we have got to have that message. And the message will be a program like this, but it will be telephone town hall meetings, going where people are.

When we introduced that agenda, we introduced that agenda in Washington. But we said, we’re going to where people are. And so, we’ll be going all around the nation, talking to people about our agenda. And that’s what has to happen. We have to go to them.

GILLMAN: Congresswoman, I do want to ask you a little bit more about the agenda. But let me just follow up on this.

As much angst as there is on the Republican side in the House, there is tremendous glee on the Democratic side. The chairman of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen, said that “We now know that there is no district in America that is safe Republican.”

Do you believe that?

GRANGER: I believe we’re going to have to fight for every seat we’ve got. I believed that in the last election. I never take anything for granted, and none of us should. None of us should take anything for granted, particularly in this election.

And again, it’s talking to people. It’s saying, do everything you have to do to get in front of people and tell them what you stand for and what you mean with great sincerity. And also, listening very carefully to what their concerns – or what their complaints about us are.

So, I never have taken a seat as a safe seat. None of us should.

KADY: I wanted to follow up on a phenomenon that we’re starting to see with some of the most recent votes, on the farm bill, for example.

That passed with a veto-proof margin in both chambers, even though President Bush says he will veto it.

Is that the beginning of some distancing that Republican members of Congress need to do or will be doing? President Bush’s approval ratings are very low. And is it smart politically to diverge from the president at this point?

GRANGER: It may be – that was not what the farm vote was about. And on the farm vote, everyone was left to decide what he or she thought was important about that. And so, there was a split among Republican votes, but there was not a decision to buck the president on that. That’s not what that vote said.

KADY: Do you see other areas, perhaps, though, where Republicans will need to stake out their own path, different from the president, just so they don’t get pummeled in the election because they’re connected to a very unpopular president?

GRANGER: That may be. Again, I’m going to go back to – I think, in this election, every seat, it will be, you know, all politics is local. It’s that. Do I connect with the people that elected me? And do I represent their values? Am I satisfying their needs? That’s what it should be about.

You know, people may be against Congress, but do I like my own congressman? Do I support my congresswoman’s position and her judgment?

And from this day and every single day, we’re going to have to be addressing that individually in our own districts. I think that’s more the situation and how the votes, how the elections will be determined.

SLEN: So, Representative Granger, no national campaign for the Republicans?

GRANGER: There will be – if you talk about a national campaign, I think the national campaign will be the way we talked about the family agenda when we announced it in Washington, but said, we’re going on the road. And with every member of Congress, using that agenda in the way that it fits that district.

If the economy, we talked about cost of living and the high price of gas, families deciding, can we take three days off for a family vacation if we have to fill our car up and it costs $65. That may be the agenda in one area, in one district.

We also talked about support for military families in a community where there’s a large base. Then talking about our troops and our veterans, but wrapping your arms as a community around the whole family.

So, again, I think there’s a national agenda for families, but it will be handled in each district by each member of Congress.

GILLMAN: I want to follow up on the family agenda that you keep talking about. And I know you rolled it out yesterday.

GRANGER: Right.

GILLMAN: So many of the elements of this are bills that have been in the hopper for quite a while. Isn’t it fair to say that this is really just a repackaging of some ongoing or even old, stale ideas?

GRANGER: In some cases, absolutely. That was very intentional. And what we wanted to say to people is, Republicans are working for families. And so, we did assemble bills that were already out there – not all of them. Some of them were new, particularly having to do with benefits for – like the GI Bill.

But some of them – and I’ll go to the very first one we talked about. And the thing that was most important when we started talking to families – and particularly women, women who worked – they said, “The thing that worries me and keeps me up at night is how in the world I balance my family and my work. How do I have enough time to do a good job, make sure I keep my job, when my 12-year-old son is having trouble at school, and I need to go visit the teacher and find out what’s wrong?”

Or in many cases, “My mother is showing memory loss. I’ve got to go with her to the doctor and find out, is this Alzheimer’s. Or is this just that she’s feeling badly?”

So, the comp time bill, sometimes called the flextime bill, has been around, yes, for some time. It’s been introduced more than once. But it’s very, very topic today to say, if I work overtime, can I get a choice of being paid time-and-a-half or take an hour off to go to my child’s school?

So, what we were saying with that, with those bills is, yes, we’ve been working on your behalf. Here’s a bill sponsored by a Republican that addresses the concern that’s most important to you.

GILLMAN: As long as we’re talking about the marketing of this, you haven’t mentioned that this agenda was also rolled out with a slogan, “the change you deserve,” which the Democrats have taken great delight in pointing out was also a trademark for an antidepressant drug called Effexor. And they’ve been talking about this election anxiety disorder.

Can you just explain how this slogan – you know, what role you had? Was it known? I mean, it’s just so lampoonable. Was this a good idea?

GRANGER: Of course not. What I had to do with it is that I picked it up to kind of wrap around the agenda for families. Had no idea. We certainly had no idea that that was a trademark or a slogan used by that drug.

And if you Google it, we couldn’t find it. So, you know, maybe “we deserve a change today” should be our trademark, because that was very – it gave the talk shows a lot to laugh about and talk about.

I still think change is what people are looking for. And I think, in our situation, what we’re saying is, the change is, we’re really paying attention today, not something in the future for the next 20 years.

KADY: But change is obviously the slogan for the two Democratic campaigns, in particular, Barack Obama’s. So, you’ve seen that’s working well for him.

And so, one of the primary platforms for both the Democratic candidates is universal health care. And I see on your family values agenda here, “assure health care for all.”

I mean, I could mistake this for a Democratic bullet point, if I didn’t know the details behind the concept of assuring health care for all.

How do you do this under – with Republican principles, you know, without a government mandate?

GRANGER: I have my own bill that’s a transferable tax credit that says, for health care, everyone should be able to buy health care. You know, one of the problems we’ve got is people change jobs all the time. Women actually change jobs more often than men, because we go in and out of the work force oftentimes to have our children or take care of our children.

And so, the bill that I have for affordable health care is a tax credit that – not a deduction at the end of the year, because those who can do that can afford to buy it upfront oftentimes – but instead, a transferable tax credit.

That’s one answer. It’s not the only answer. Association health plans are very good for small business. Community health centers taking care of people right there in the neighborhood.

We’re saying everyone should have health care that’s accessible and affordable. Not universal health care paid for by the government, but market-based, or in some cases, as I said, community health centers that have been very, very successful and very popular.

GILLMAN: You talked about the farm bill a little bit earlier, and we explored the idea that so many Republicans went against the president on this.

I wanted to ask you about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which overwhelmingly, members of Congress in both houses, and overwhelmingly Republicans, including yourself, voted to halt purchases into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – again, going against the judgment of the president.

You know, in Texas we often see that people in both parties are very much on the same page, or at least similar, when it comes to energy policy. But here’s a place where we see this huge divergence between Texans – yourself, for example – and the president.

What does that say? I mean, again, does it get to the idea that President Bush is a lame duck and he can’t rally his own people? Or is there some fundamental flaw in judgment when it comes to how to address high gasoline prices?

GRANGER: On that one we disagreed with the president. And part of it is the fact – you know, I still go back to Fort Worth every week. Most of us do. We spend our work week up here in Washington, and then we take off and go back home to the people that elected us.

And they’re saying, the gas price is just causing us enormous problems. We hear it every town hall meeting, at the grocery store, at the gas station. And perhaps, because we’re facing it with the people that we see all the time, we felt that was the right response right now. And I stand by it, and I know it certainly was for my district.

KADY: I’d like to continue on energy policy here, since it’s on everyone’s mind so much when they fill up their gas tank.

Why is there such a dearth of new ideas from both sides? I mean the Republicans are very much focused on things that we’ve all heard before – drilling in ANWR, more production, drilling in the outer continental shelf. And the Democrats have a rehash of their proposals, too – a windfall tax on oil companies, investigating price gouging, cracking down on Wall Street speculation on oil commodities.

These are things that I’ve heard for years up here. How come there’s no new ideas? And why is there no middle ground here?

GRANGER: Because they’re – they may be old ideas, but they’re good ideas. Oil production has been down for the last 25 years. And the steps we need to take, we haven’t taken.

And so, it’s not so much old ideas. It’s saying, there’s an urgency. Do it. And every day we don’t do it, every day we don’t take those steps, we’re hurting the financial security of this nation and, certainly, businesses and families.

I agree – Lamar Alexander said we need a Manhattan Project on energy. And that may be some new technology, but it’s a matter of saying it is an urgent situation. Do it. Come up with energy policy that provides for the future, and does something as quickly as possible to ensure that we become more energy independent. We may not be completely, but we certainly should be addressing it at a faster rate than we are.

It’s a matter of national security. People understood that. They’re willing to make sacrifices. They’re willing to look at alternative energy. It’s government that’s lagged.

SLEN: This is “Newsmakers” on C-SPAN. Our guest is Kay Granger. She is vice chairman of the Republican Conference. Reporters Todd Gillman, “Dallas Morning News,” and Martin Kady of “The Politico.”

Gentlemen, next question.

GILLMAN: I want to switch gears a little bit on you, Ms. Granger. You’re a former mayor of Fort Worth. We have not heard very much during the presidential campaign about an urban agenda.

Do you think that America’s cities are being neglected this year?

GRANGER: In some ways. I know that in Fort Worth, Texas, there has been an enormous revitalization of the inner city. The city closest to us, Arlington, Texas, the same thing. They’re putting great effort into their downtown. Dallas certainly has. You’ve got people moving back into the inner city.

We’ve still got, though, urban problems having to do with our schools. And one of the great concerns that go back to families, a great concern is, you know, are my kids getting the education that they have to have to be able to be competitive?

Are we also educating everyone toward college, which is – the costs are rising? Are we educating people to some really good manufacturing jobs?

So, I think that people moving back into cities, and particularly into downtowns, has perhaps taken the edge off this enormous need for an urban agenda. But it’s there.

The infrastructure, I think, is the thing that concerns most government people that serve in local government. You know, are we going to be able to keep our highways, our bridges, all that helps a community grow and stay vital, and particularly helps keep businesses in the United States.

We focus on health care, number one, our tax system to make sure that American businesses grow and we don’t lose them all overseas, but sometimes forget about infrastructure and how important that is in keeping our businesses in the United States.

KADY: Now, you’ve talked a lot about energy and small businesses and health care in the American families agenda here.

GRANGER: Right.

KADY: There is a national security section, but I don’t see the word Iraq anywhere in there. I see win the war on terror, take care of veterans and military families. But Iraq has been such a dominant issue for this country.

And is this something that Republicans need to avoid? Do you need to shift course on this? I mean, it’s not in your agenda, but it’s obviously hanging over everyone running for election.

GRANGER: It’s not in the agenda, because that – again, this is the agenda for families. It’s not the overarching agenda for Republicans. It’s an agenda directly to families.

And so, when we talk about families and ask about their concerns, and surveyed their concerns, their concerns were keeping this country safe, absolutely. But their concerns about security had much more to do with security in their communities in their schools. And they were very, very concerned about, specifically about danger for kids on the Internet and inappropriate spam on the Internet.

So, it was much more a family-oriented, security, safety agenda. But what we did talk about is wrapping our arms around our troops, our veterans and their families. And so, there has to – again, we have GI benefits, health care.

The families, particularly women, were very aware that, if dad, for instance, served three deployments, comes home and two years later has post-traumatic stress syndrome, it’s not just dad that’s going to suffer. It will be the entire family. And that came through loud and clear on the surveys we did.

So, again, we weren’t ignoring Iraq or deliberately leaving it out. But when we were talking to families, we were trying to talk about what their concerns – their absolutely, everyday concerns. And I always put it, what keeps them up at night.

GILLMAN: If Martin will indulge me, and C-SPAN will indulge me, I wanted to ask a slightly parochial political question.

You have expressed some interest in running for the Senate seat that is currently held by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas, if she gives it up to run for governor. And several of your colleagues in the House have also expressed some interest.

Is it just not fun anymore to serve in the House, if you’re a Republican?

GRANGER: It’s not as much fun as it is when you’re in the majority. And I’d ask the same question, when Democrats served in minority it was as much fun. But that’s not a reason to decide to run for another office.

I just said I’m keeping my options open. I will not make a decision that doesn’t serve the district, congressional district that I serve right now, and doesn’t serve them well. They’ve been incredibly supportive of me, coming from the zoning commission, the city council to mayor, and now to Congress.

And so, I will continue to serve them. If I decide that I can do that well and have support, then I will consider a Senate run. And if not, I’ll continue to serve in the House of Representatives and represent the values and needs of District 12. Thanks for asking.

KADY: And one of our final questions here, we have to address this lengthy memo that one of your colleagues, Tom Davis, wrote. And it’s gotten a lot of publicity.

One of the things he said was that this is the worst climate for Republicans since Watergate. And, you know, that was a pretty bad year for Republicans.

Do you agree with that assessment? I mean, could you lose another 10, 20 seats this fall?

GRANGER: I’m not very good at making predictions. It is a very difficult time. There is no doubt about it. It’s a difficult time for Republicans. That’s why I say, we’re going to have to do everything that we can do to convince people that we want to serve, and serve well, and make life better.

So, you know, people have got real problems and real concerns, and we need to offer real solutions. It is a hard – it’s a difficult time. I hope it gets better.

SLEN: And to follow up on that question, Representative Granger, Tom Davis also wrote that John McCain might not be helpful in the fall.

Do you agree with that?

GRANGER: No, I don’t agree with that. I think John McCain is doing a great job out there with people, you know, the straight talk express. He is a straight talker. And he also appeals to independents in a very strong way. He’s a strong candidate, and I look forward to working with him.

I was glad to have Carly Fiorina from his Victory ’08, chairman there at the press conference that we had. And she understands what’s going on with people. She certainly understands working Americans.

SLEN: Representative Kay Granger, vice chairman of the Republican Conference, the highest ranking Republican woman in the House of Representatives, thanks for being on “Newsmakers.”

Martin Kady, Todd Gillman, let’s pick up where we left off with the Tom Davis memo. That was a rather strong memo – by the way, available at c-span.org, if you want to read it.

Is this a – was this an intervention that he was doing with this, of the Republican Party?

KADY: It’s a parting shot. I mean, Tom Davis is a – he’s leaving Congress. He came in, in the Republican sweep in ’94. I covered his first race.

And he rose through the leadership, became a chairman. He ran the NRCC. And now he’s …

SLEN: And successfully that year.

KADY: Yes, he had a much better election climate than Tom Cole, that’s for sure. But I think, you know, he thinks there should be more radical changes in the outlook of the Republican Party.

I mean, American families agenda is fine. It’s stuff that we’ve all heard before. And they need a shakeup is what he’s saying.

GILLMAN: Well, and the shape of that shakeup is very much open for debate and suggestion from the party elders. I mean, Tom DeLay has been going around the past few days saying, “We need big ideas, bold ideas.”

And, you know, Davis is saying this and that.

I mean, everybody – you can have all kinds of great ideas, but the climate, as Martin said, is horrendous right now for Republicans.

SLEN: What are the strengths for the Republicans in Congress?

GILLMAN: Well, until recently, party discipline was a strength. I would say that they have really allowed that to erode.

If they were to sit themselves down and really, truly, as Representative Granger has – you know, if they all drank the Kool-Aid and said, “McCain is great, and we will line up behind him, and we will allow him to show us the way out of the wilderness,” that definitely could be a strength for them.

But I have to think that at least half of the Republican Conference in the House is simply not willing to do that. They disagree with him on too many fundamental issues. And they will play along and find the common ground where they can. But I don’t see them really, truly rallying behind him – and letting him set the agenda.

KADY: One of their strengths is something that they used to have when they had their original brand, and that’s fiscal conservatism. I mean, they are consistent, and they need to continue to be consistent, on taxes, low taxes, tax cuts, small government, less spending.

The earmark push – the push to either ban earmarks or have some sort of a moratorium on them – that might have legs. I mean, people associate earmarks with corruption.

Because right now, the social issues are not hot, you know. There’s nothing about gay marriage, flag burning and abortion being discussed right now.

GILLMAN: But don’t you wonder, if McCain is out there all the time saying, “We Republicans have lost our way,” on exactly the issues you’re talking about, we have not acted fiscally – you know, in a fiscally conservative way – this is a very mixed message.

He’s saying, “I will get us back to that point.” But in the meantime, isn’t he also sending the message of, you know, “Why should you reward the rest of my party for the way they have behaved?” I think this is a problem for the whole party going into the fall.

KADY: And if they wanted to be bold, they could have all come out and voted against the farm bill. I mean, the president’s going to veto it. They’re going to override it. But it’s just so chock full of goodies for everyone in every district in every state that – a handful of them did vote against it. But if they really wanted to make a statement, they would have tried to kill the farm bill.

GILLMAN: I really wonder if, over the next few months, we’re not going to see a back-bench rebellion of some sort. Maybe the Republican Study Committee is going to emerge as a real force …

SLEN: Mike Pence?

GILLMAN: Well, Jeb Hensarling now, but Pence is the former chairman.

Some block is going to emerge, I think, to try to challenge the course that the leadership is taking.

KADY: There’s already a handful of young guys, young bucks in the House who – you know, you can see them being future minority or majority leaders or speakers, I mean, folks like Adam Putnam.

You know, Eric Cantor – whether through surrogates or whether his own office has done this sort of behinds the scenes – he suddenly has a whisper campaign to be a vice presidential candidate. He’s a young guy in his 40s from Richmond.

I mean, Paul Ryan from Wisconsin is another one of these guys – conservative, fiscal conservative, on Ways and Means …

SLEN: Is John Boehner in trouble?

KADY: I don’t think he’s going to get overthrown in a sort of Newt Gingrich-style coup. But …

GILLMAN: I think if you see the Republican minority down to, say, 150, 160 come November, you know, January when they’re sworn in, I can’t see the same leadership team.

KADY: Yes. But I mean, Boehner is a team player. Having followed him, he likes to do what’s best for his party. I don’t think he’s going to get in the way. If he senses that his caucus really wants change, I sense that he’ll go along. But he’s not in danger right now.

SLEN: Martin Kady of “The Politico,” Todd Gillman, “Dallas Morning News,” thank you, gentlemen.

KADY: Thank you.

GILLMAN: Thank you.

END