BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MATTHEWS: Congressman Stupak, you"re one of the--in fact, you are
the leader on the issue of being pro-life, as a Democrat, fighting to keep
in a restriction, or a ban, rather, on the use of federal money, the Hyde
amendment, to keep it in effect in regard to this legislation. How"s that
fight going now? Is there any way to reconcile the concerns of other
Democrats with the concerns of the pro-lifers?
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: Sure, Chris. I think we can
reconcile those concerns. I, like the president, would like to see health
care passed, affordable health care for all Americans. I voted for it. I
want to see it again. The president has stated publicly and addressed the
nation on September 9th that there"d be no federal funding for abortion, so
I"m willing to work with the president to see that his words ring true.
MATTHEWS: Well, let"s take a look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at
Blair House last week. Let"s listen. See if you agree.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Leader Boehner, the
law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion, and there is no
public funding of abortion in these bills. And I don"t want our listeners
or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Is the Speaker correct?
STUPAK: No.
MATTHEWS: Explain.
STUPAK: The Speaker is incorrect. In the Senate bill--in the
Senate bill, and that"s what they"re telling us the vehicle we"re using.
In the Senate bill, it says you must offer insurance policies that will be
paid for by the federal government that covers abortion. You must do so.
Also in that same language, if you come in the Senate version, in the OPM,
Office of Personnel Management, policies they"ll be putting forth, you must
pay--every enrollee must pay one dollar per month into a fund to help
fund abortions.
It"s very clear. I direct the Speaker"s attention to pages 33 to page
44 of the Senate bill as written in the Senate and passed on Christmas Eve.
MATTHEWS: So according to your reading of the bill that"s passed the
Senate, which the House is going to have to vote on in the next couple
weeks, insurance covers abortion services.
STUPAK: That"s what it insures. And we will not vote for that type
of legislation. The majority of the House has spoken. We will not support
legislation that has public funding for abortion.
You know, Chris, the president said, OK, here"s his four or five
proposals he"s doing today. So what we"re voting on can"t really be the
Senate bill there. It has to be a conglomeration...
MATTHEWS: Right.
STUPAK: ... or compromise. So look, we"re willing to work with him.
Let"s keep current law, which says no public funding for abortion. There
are at least eight programs, everything from Department of Defense,
children"s health initiative, Medicare, Medicaid, you name it, it says no
public funding for abortion. Let"s keep the current law. And I"m
willing...
MATTHEWS: OK...
STUPAK: ... to work with the president and the Speaker to do that.
MATTHEWS: Here"s what I don"t understand, what I want to understand,
because I want this reconciled, like a lot of people do. It seems to me
that Hyde is pretty clear, the Hyde amendment that"s been carried for years
now in the House on every spending bill. Why can"t you attach it to
another bill, to any or all of the upcoming appropriations bills this year,
or a continuing resolution, and include in the language on something that
would get a majority because the Republicans would all vote for it in that
case, where you"d get 218, the required number of majority votes, on any
measure later this year that said--and get Nancy Pelosi to approve that,
guaranteed promise that there"ll be--there will be a rider attached to
every spending bill henceforth that says the Hyde amendment"s in effect on
all federal legislation. Could you do that?
STUPAK: As long as it (INAUDIBLE) dealt with under this act, this
health care--health care proposal act. You"re right, Hyde applies only
to appropriation bills. This will be a new act that will be creating
health care for Americans. It has to be in this act. This act is not
necessarily an appropriation bill.
MATTHEWS: Right.
STUPAK: It"s an enacting legislation. As long as they put the
language in it...
MATTHEWS: But can you pass it--can you pass it as part of another
bill, so that you could get Republicans? The problem, you know, is, Mr.
Stupak--you know, Congressman, the problem here is the math. To get Hyde
passed, you need a lot of Republican votes to get it, to pass it, if you
had an up-or-down vote on Hyde at any moment on any appropriations bill.
STUPAK: Right.
MATTHEWS: This time, no Republicans are going to vote for it. None
are going to vote for this health care bill. So how can you get Hyde to
pass as a rider, as a separate vote in this case unless you jam it down the
throats of the pro-choicers?
STUPAK: Right. It would have be a separate bill. It would have to
be tie-barred (ph) to the final health care bill. You could do it that
way, Chris. You could tie bar it to the final health care bill. You could
do it that way.
MATTHEWS: Yes. What does that mean in English?
STUPAK: I mean, you"re right...
MATTHEWS: What does that mean?
STUPAK: One bill doesn"t pass without the other. They go jointly
together. They walk down the aisle together and have that vote...
(CROSSTALK)
STUPAK: Two separate votes, but they"re tied together.
MATTHEWS: Have you--would Republicans vote for that, or would they
say that would be helping health care pass?
STUPAK: Good question. But the principle for myself and the
Republicans, I think, is greater and they would vote for it.
MATTHEWS: OK. Well, let me ask you this. Has the Speaker responded
to that proposal, tie barring these?
STUPAK: No, they have not.
MATTHEWS: Have you offered it?
STUPAK: Yes. I"ve talked to people--yes. We have had discussions
and here"s one way we could do it. Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK. Well, thank you. Let me ask you this about Eric
Cantor. He is definitely trying to fish in troubled waters here. He"s the
Republican whip. He"s the ramrod on that side of the aisle. He"s loving
the fact you"re in dispute. And I understand this is an issue of
conscience. I completely understand, let me tell you. Here he is,
singling out you and a list of 12 other members, including that Republican
from Louisiana, from New Orleans, who"s voted--he"s in Jefferson"s
district. It"s a Democratic district. He"s now switching the other way.
Is this an accurate list of people that will vote against the Senate
version if it comes up because it doesn"t have the restriction on abortion?
STUPAK: I haven"t seen the list, Chris, but it"s accurate to say
there are at least 12 of us who voted for health care who have indicated to
the leadership and others that unless you fix this abortion language, we
can"t vote for a final version of the bill.
MATTHEWS: What do you think the Speaker meant when she made that
statement, that the law of the land is there"s no public funding of
abortion in these bills? What does she mean? I mean, try and understand
her. What does she mean? Does she mean the government doesn"t buy and pay
doctors for abortion, that it simply pays for insurance premiums that will
then cover abortion? What jesuitical language are you accusing her of
here, if that"s what you"re saying.
STUPAK: Well, if she"s talking about the Senate language, again, go
to the pages I cited, page--I believe it"s 38 to 44. If you go look at
it, it says every enrollee in the OPM, Office of Personnel Management--
every enrollee in one of those plans must play one dollar per month for
reproductive rights, which include abortion. So not only are you talking
about abortion coverage in insurance policies, but now you"re asking
everyone who enrolls in these plans to pay at least $1 per month into a
fund to help pay for abortion. So you"re making the insurance companies...
MATTHEWS: OK...
STUPAK: ... provide it, plus, you"re making people pay for it. She"s
wrong.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe the Democratic Party, the majority of the
party you"re in, is willing to go down to defeat on the major legislative
issue of this presidency because of its pro-choice position?
STUPAK: No. No, because...
MATTHEWS: You don"t think they"re willing to go down to defeat.
STUPAK: No, because if you look at the pro-choice letter that Diana
Degette and others claim to have 40-some signatures on--if you read that
letter very carefully, it says, We must maintain current law. Current law.
That"s all the Stupak amendment does, maintain current law. Just take my
name off it. Call the Hyde amendment. Just maintain current law...
MATTHEWS: I know what the law says.
STUPAK: Put it in the health care act, and we"re OK.
MATTHEWS: I don"t understand why they don"t--let me ask you this.
Are you willing to bring down the House on the issue of life?
STUPAK: Well, look, we"re going to do what we have to do. We"re not
compromising on this issue. We"ve gone as far as we can. They know that.
We"re not--I want to see health care as much as the president and the
Speaker, but this is a principle and belief that the only bill...
MATTHEWS: OK...
STUPAK: ... the only amendment ever had a vote was this one. It"s
bipartisan. We want to see it. We want it passed.
MATTHEWS: OK...
STUPAK: We want to see health care.
MATTHEWS: Thank you. This is a very hot issue, Congressman. I much
appreciate you coming on to start HARDBALL tonight.
STUPAK: Thanks.
MATTHEWS: This couldn"t be--this is the one. This is the issue, I
think, that could make or break health care reform. Thank you very much,
Bart Stupak of Michigan, a Democrat.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT