Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Interview With J.C. Watts

Aired December 29, 2001 - 17:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: I'm Robert Novak.

Mark Shields and I will question the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

MARK SHIELDS, CO-HOST: He is Congressman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SHIELDS (voice-over): Through the just completed first session of the 107th Congress, the Republican-controlled House passed much of what President Bush proposed and side-tracked what he did not want.

In the closing weeks, the House passed the Bush trade bill and an economic stimulus measure, but the Democratic-controlled Senate took no action on either.

Awaiting House action next year are Senate-passed measures for campaign finance and patients' bill of rights.

J.C. Watts first attracted national attention 20 years ago, as the flamboyant quarterback on the University of Oklahoma's Orange Bowl teams, and later was a star in the Canadian Football League. He was elected state corporation commissioner in 1990 at age 32, one year after switching from Democrat to Republican. He was elected to Congress in 1994 from a previously Democratic district.

After the disappointing Republican performance in the 1998 elections, when Newt Gingrich stepped down as speaker, J.C. Watts successfully challenged Congressman John Boehner of Ohio to become conference chairman, the fourth ranking in the GOP leadership.

He has not said whether he will run for a higher leadership position after the 2002 elections.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SHIELDS: J.C. Watts, welcome.

We are now holding our breath in the United States as India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed countries stand at swords' point, hailing insults and fire across that border. What can, what should the United States do to bring us back from the brink of war?

WATTS: Well, Mark, happy holidays to you guys.

India and Pakistan, that is a very sensitive situation and has been for some time. Even before 9/11, it was a very sensitive situation.

And I think when you go back and look at when President Bush was putting together his team, back in December-January, he was accounting for the sensitivities on the foreign front when he asked Colin Powell to be his secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld to be his secretary of defense, and Condoleezza Rice as his national security adviser. And I think he's got a pretty good team. We will, obviously, have to monitor that and try to manage that situation and stay involved and try and ease the tension over there, but this has been going on for sometime.

SHIELDS: Congressman Watts, can the United States, which has been quite cordial and quite grateful to Pakistan since September 11, can the United States be an honest broker between these two countries?

WATTS: Well, I think they can. The prime minister of India has been to the United States on several occasions. I think the administration has had very good -- has had a very good dialogue with the prime minister of India.

Pakistan, as you said, stepped up to the plate at a very difficult time, post-September 11, and has been involved in trying to manage this terrorism situation as much as possible.

So I think that the dialogue that we've got with both of those nations, I think it's healthy, I think it's good, and I do think we can be an honest broker.

NOVAK: Congressman Watts, considering the success of the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, there's a lot of speculation whether the United States now will strike against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In fact, Friday morning's Wall Street Journal said the president is likely to make a decision by mid-January. If you were giving advice to President Bush, would you say that there should be a U.S. military operation against Iraq?

WATTS: Well, Bob, even before September 11 -- I think as this post-September 11 continues to unfold, I think we're going to find Saddam Hussein's DNA on this situation over and over again. I think we will see that.

But, however, before September, we were well-aware of Saddam Hussein and what's going on in Iraq. He kicked our inspectors out -- our weapon's inspectors out -- back in 1998, and we have yet to go back in there. He has yet to honor an agreement that was made back in 1991. So we have known of his, you know, thumbing his nose at our inspectors.

And I think, at coalition that was put together in 1991, that he agreed to the terms of allowing our inspectors to go in and inspect his arsenal, his nuclear weaponry, if you will. NOVAK: Would you issue him an ultimatum on inspections, or just go right ahead and blast them even if our coalition partners don't approve of that?

WATTS: Well, I think President Bush made it very clear that post-September 11, shortly after September 11th, he said, either you're with us or you're against us. We will come after you if you are a terrorist or if you are harboring terrorists.

I think our coalition, I think, in the end, will understand that Saddam Hussein is not good for them. Saddam Hussein applauds what happened in America on September 11.

So I think the president obviously will think through this thing. I would encourage him to think through it. But at the same time, I would encourage him not to be afraid to take action against Iraq, based on what we've known before September 11 and I think what we continue to find out post-September 11.

SHIELDS: All right, Congressman Watts, Majority Leader Dick Armey has announced his intention to retire from the House, and Tom DeLay of Texas, the whip, is expected to succeed him.

Have you made up your mind as to whether you will be a candidate for Republican House whip or Republican majority leader?

WATTS: Mark, I have not. I am not in or neither am I out of any race. I think that we've got about another 11 and a half months to try and determine who the next majority leader or the majority whip is going to be.

I have said over the last couple of weeks, it all happened so quickly with Majority Leader Armey stepping down, that I don't think any of us have had an opportunity to really measure this and try to think through this to determine where we go from here.

I have encouraged all of my colleagues to really take time to think about where do we go from here. I think this is a very major decision for our conference, for the Republicans that make up our conference who will have a vote. And I hope they will think through it methodically whether I'm in or whether I'm out. Again, I think the decision is that important.

SHIELDS: OK. Congressman Peter King of New York, who lives in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, said of the elevation of Tom DeLay to the more prominent position of majority leader: "It's not going to make it easier for us to reach out to Reagan Democrats and swing voters."

Is Tom DeLay the face of the Republican Party?

WATTS: Well, I think Tom -- the Republican Party should have many faces. I think Tom DeLay has a role to play in growing our party and reaching out to people. I think Peter King has a role to play; Ann Northup, Jennifer Dunn, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, J.C. Watts. We all are the faces of the Republican Party. We all have a role to play. And by the way, I believe Peter King, if you can believe what's been written in press reports, I think Peter King has agreed to support Tom DeLay.

So, I think we all have a role to play. I don't think that any one face should dominate as the face of the Republican Party. I think we do have diversity in our conference, and I think that that diversity needs to be articulated, it needs to be show cased, and I think you'll see that.

I worked very hard as conference chairman to do that over the last three years. I think we've made some gains, but obviously, we've got a lot of work that needs to be done.

NOVAK: Well, that -- we just have time for a quick question before we take a break, Mr. Watts.

Do you think that you have been successful in trying to show a kinder, gentler Republican Party, or do you think that, to much of the nation, you come over on the House Republican side as a bunch of tough guys?

WATTS: Well, Bob, I think we've made some gains. I don't think we're where we need to be. I don't think we should be complacent as a party. I think we always need to try and work to be inclusive, not exclusive. I think we need to work on informing and persuading people and not screening people. I think we need to work much better in trying to have conflict management, as opposed to conflict resolution, which means that you kick somebody out of the party if they disagree with you.

WATTS: So I think the conscience level has been raised over the last three years concerning these things. But, again, we obviously have much more work to be done, considering what has happened in the elections in '96 and 2000 concerning the black vote and the Hispanic vote and the female vote. Our numbers show that we've got a lot of work that needs to be done. But I do think we've gotten a good start.

NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to take a break.

And when we come back, we'll ponder with J.C. Watts a question: Should President Bush have called back Congress right after Christmas to pass an economic stimulus bill?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: Congressman J.C. Watts, your speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, urged the president publicly to call back the Congress when the Democratic Senate failed to act on the economic stimulus bill, call them back in early January, immediately after New Year's, and get to work on that, to pressure the Democrats to move on it.

And yet, President Bush shows very little enthusiasm and less interest in calling back the Congress. Has the president made a political mistake here? WATTS: Well, Mark, when you consider the fact that we've lost about 700,000 jobs over the last two and a half months, I think it was important, and I do agree with the speaker, that we should have come back shortly after January 1 to try and encourage the Senate to move an economic security package.

I don't necessarily put this -- or put the fault of this in the lap of the president. I put this in the lap of Senator Daschle. We passed our first economic stimulus package back in the middle of October, that was the first time. You hear about two weeks ago, we passed another package for the second time, and we've yet to get any action from Senator Daschle.

So I'm not real optimistic -- or I wouldn't have been very optimistic had we gone back shortly after -- or if we go back shortly after January 1 that the Senate would move.

However, I do think we should have gone back to try and force the Senate to move to get people -- to get those 700,000 people some relief.

You know, the fascinating thing about this is, 535 members of Congress, we all had our checks direct deposited into our checking accounts. We all got paid. We all had a good Christmas. And I think it's unfortunate, considering that we got paid, that we totally ignored -- or that the Senate ignored the fact that people were out of jobs and were not working. And that really saddened me that they did not move on the economic stimulus package.

SHIELDS: Congressman Watts, as you know, the Republicans have lost seats in the last three elections. The nation is in a recession. The surplus is shrinking by the hour. Deficits are returning. Unemployment is up.

Is this the year that the Republicans finally lose their razor- thin majority in the House?

WATTS: I don't think it is. I think we're positioned very well due to redistricting, I think due to the record that we've established concerning policy, the policy successes that we've had over the last year. I think we're positioned very well to repeat and even to grow our majority. I can only talk for the House.

I think Tom Davis does a good job in keeping us updated and monitoring the nation and the different races around the nation. And I think we're going to do well.

You talk about the recession. We are in a recession. We've known as far back as the third, fourth quarter of 2000 that the economy was getting soft. That's why we passed the tax bill about six months ago to try to get some stimulation into the economy.

So we're doing things, trying to address where we are in our economy. And, again, I think it points to Senator Daschle on the Senate side that he hasn't moved on these economic security packages that we've sent to him, considering what we see happening in our economy.

NOVAK: Congressman Watts, there are two big bills passed by the Senate that have been sitting in the House for a long time: an HMO regulation bill called the patients' bill of rights, and a campaign finance regulation bill.

NOVAK: Are you going to smother those for all of the year 2002, or is the House going to take action on them?

WATTS: Well, Bob, if you look back and when Denny Hastert became speaker of the House in 1998 for the start of the 106th Congress, we passed a prescription drug benefit; we passed HMO reform.

We did not move on campaign finance, nothing's been resolved there. But I continue to be convinced, as I travel around the country, the American people are not as concerned about campaign finance as the Washington insiders seem to be.

I think the American people are concerned about us -- I think they do want a prescription drug benefit. I think we need to do that. I think that's very important.

But I think even more important is the fact that they want us to do things to move our economy along. They want us to create economic security for them. They want to get back to work. They want to see business expand and grow jobs. I think those things are much more important in the grand scheme of things, based on where we are at this point in time in our nation.

SHIELDS: Congressman Watts, the Republicans are the pro-life party, that's how they bill themselves. Repeatedly during the Clinton years the Congress, by big margins, passed the repeal of the partial birth abortion, banning that procedure. And yet, we have a pro-life president in the White House and there's been no action in the Republican House or in the Senate or from the White House on partial birth abortion.

What's going on? What's the flaw here?

WATTS: Well, Mark, that's true, there hasn't been any action. But, you know, we haven't had any action on a prescription drug benefit. We haven't had any action on a lot of different things that we dealt with or that we saw as priorities prior to September 11.

When you look at the last 11 months, I think, using any fair and reasonable standard, you'd have to say that the president and the Congress, that we've been pretty tied up by the way the president was sworn in, all that consternation based on the recount...

NOVAK: We have to take a...

WATTS: ... September 11 has happened, we've been dealing with that for the last three or four months.

So I'm not saying those things aren't going to happen, I'm just saying we have been busy over the last seven or eight months. NOVAK: We have to take another break.

And when we come back, we will have the Big Question for J.C. Watts of Oklahoma.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: "The Big Question" for J.C. Watts of Oklahoma:

Congressman, the Republican performance with the African-American vote continues to be very poor. Do you think the party really is making an effort in getting that vote to vote for?

WATTS: Bob, I don't think we've made adequate efforts over the last 10 years, but I do think that we're positioned well. I think the president has performed very well. His numbers right now are very good in the African-American community and the black community.

You know, he's got phenomenal approval ratings right now. And that doesn't mean that the black community is going to vote Republican in the year 2002 or 2004, but with the president's approval rating being what they are, with the congressional numbers being what they are, I think people are open to listening right now.

And so we've got to perform. We've got to produce. We've got to work very hard in, I think, showing how our policies affect all Americans, how our tax bill affects the black community in a positive way in eliminating the marriage tax, eliminating unfair death tax, reducing tax rates.

WATTS: All of those things impact the African-American community in a very positive way.

So I do think we're positioned, based on the numbers, we're positioned very well to go in and make our case and tell our story.

SHIELDS: Congressman Watts, in your judgment today, is Jesse Jackson still the dominant African-American leader, politically, in this country?

WATTS: Well, Mark, good, bad or indifferent, I think that Jesse Jackson is still a very viable player in the black community. I think he has proven that; he continues to prove that. So, yes, I do believe that Jesse Jackson is still a player, a viable player on the political front, on the economic front in the black community.

SHIELDS: OK. J.C. Watts, thank you very much for being with us.

Robert Novak and I will be back in a minute with a comment.

WATTS: Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Mark, J.C. Watts is a team player, but he also made clear he doesn't like the image that the House Republicans are putting out to the world. But he is not yet ready to run against or even to oppose the DeLay-Blunt team for party leadership after the 2002 election.

SHIELDS: Not ready to decide, Bob. And in my experience in politics, the decision not to decide is usually a decision not to run. He didn't sound like a guy who was eager to take on either Tom DeLay or Roy Blunt at this point.

NOVAK: Mark, when we asked Congressman Watts about the failure to pass an economic stimulus bill he blamed it on Tom Daschle. In fact, he blames everything on the Senate majority leader, and I think that is the very intense Republican tactic.

SHIELDS: Intense Republican tactic is blowing, basically, from the Democrat success in demonizing and villainizing Newt Gingrich, the speaker of the House, making him the face of the Republican Party.

Newt Gingrich is no Tom Daschle; Tom Daschle is no Newt Gingrich. Tough to make him into enemy number one.

NOVAK: I'm Robert Novak.

SHIELDS: I'm Mark Shields.

Coming up at 7 p.m. on "CAPITAL GANG," new problems with airline security; and the Gang's pick for person of the year, with former California Congressman Vic Fazio and conservative guru William Bennett.

NOVAK: CNN's coverage of America's new war continues.

Thanks for joining us.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com