MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan put the abortion language into the House version of a health care bill. Pro-choice lawmakers say it‘s too restrictive and vow to strip it.

Welcome, Congressman Stupak. Thank you for joining us.

This has been a hard fight for you. What is your endgame? Do you hope to keep your amendment in the final bill?

REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: Yes, we would like to keep current law in federal health care. I mean, if we expand federal health care, we think current law, which is the Hyde amendment, which says we do not pay for the benefit of abortion, nor do we pay for health care plans which provide abortion. So, we‘re just going to keep current language.

MATTHEWS: How many members do you have that will fight to the finish against a conference report, for example, that might come back with that language missing?

STUPAK: Well, I haven‘t really gone and counted. And we want to see what a conference report looks like.

Everyone keeps telling us we‘re going to keep current language. That‘s what my amendment is. The Stupak amendment is nothing more than current language. And, if they keep current language, I guess we don‘t have to worry about it.

MATTHEWS: But that‘s the problem. How do you find the current language? The current language says no federal money pays for an abortion. The president says no federal money can be used to subsidized abortion.

And, yet, we have never had subsidies before of insurance policies that already exist.

Let‘s listen to the president, the way he says it. This was on "Nightline."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "NIGHTLINE")

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we‘re not looking to change what is a core principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is, federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Congressman Stupak, how do you read that?

STUPAK: Well, that‘s exactly what the president said. We do not use federal dollars to subsidize abortions. And we do not use federal dollars to subsidize health insurance plans that provide abortion coverage.

Take federal employees, over eight million of them, federal employees. They pay their monthly premium. The federal government also pays part of their federal premium for federal employees‘ health benefit package. We have never paid for abortion coverage. Those insurance policies that offer their plans to the federal employees, they cannot use-they cannot have abortion coverage in there.

MATTHEWS: Is there any compromise beyond which we have not reached yet? Is there any way to reach a compromise between you, and, say, the Senate language that they‘re talking about, the Lois Capps approach, which is say that the money will be segregated?

STUPAK: Well-well, that‘s not Lois Capps‘ approach.

Lois Capps said there must be abortion coverage. It would be covered. You could use money to pay for abortions. Everyone had to pay $1 per month in the public option to pay for abortion coverage.

Capps‘ language was-is nothing what they‘re talking about in the Senate. The Senate, they‘re talking about segregating funds. We‘re willing to look at it. That‘s been offered in the past. And you know what? When we went to offer to segregate the funds-it‘s called the Dornan amendment-we were flatly rejected. They wouldn‘t even let us offer the Dornan amendment, which says segregate the funds.

So, I guess, on our side, we‘re seeming to wanting it both ways. When it‘s in their interest, then, suddenly, they want to segregate funds. But went we ask that there be a segregation of funds, as in the Dornan amendment, we-they just shut us down. They-they‘re just-they won‘t give us our amendments.

So, I mean, Chris, there‘s a problem here. You know, we-we had a fair-and-square vote. We won. Fifty-five percent of all the representatives said we should not have public funds paying for abortion. So-so, you win on the floor.

Now, suddenly, they want us to come back and compromise. Every time we have asked for something this year, they have said no. Every time we went for a pro-life amendment on every one of the appropriation bills-it‘s is the first time ever-they said no, no, no, no.

And then we tried to work it out in health care, they‘ve said no.

And then so they had to give me my amendment, and then we beat them, now suddenly they want to compromise. You know...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, I understand you‘ve got the upper hand here, Congressman, because you‘ve got the bill through the Congress, the House side the way you wanted it. But what I‘m hearing now from another member of Congress is, there are people on the other side. the pro-choice, the pro-abortion rights side, who now say they won‘t vote for the bill that has your amendment in it.

So you‘ve got two people, two points of view now willing to say, my way or the highway. And is that going to kill health care?

STUPAK: No, I don‘t think it‘s going to kill health care. After all, it‘s the pro-life Democrats that really put the health care bill over the top. Forty-one of the members who voted of the 64 who voted for my amendment, Democrats, ended up then supporting the health care bill.

Look, everyone is jostling for position right now. We‘ve been consistent. No federal funds for abortion, keep the current law, and let‘s do talk about health care, and let‘s not have an abortion debate. The sad part about this whole debate is, we never talk about the good things that‘s in the health care bill. We‘re all hung up on this abortion issue, which all I did was keep current law. We should be talking about health care.

MATTHEWS: Is there anyone on the Budget Committee or the Health-the Finance Committee staff or Ways or Means staff that‘s trying to figure out some new way to compromise here? That would achieve the goal of health care reform and maintain the status quo? Is anybody working on that now?

STUPAK: Yes, a couple of senators...

MATTHEWS: Or is it just a battle between your side and the other side?

STUPAK: No, no. a couple of senators and I, we talked today, and trying to see if there‘s some common language. Here‘s my amendment, they had my amendment. Well, what is wrong with it? Where do you think the-for the pro-choice people, they say it‘s over-broad. Where is it? It‘s the Hyde language, it‘s not over-broad.

Everyone agrees, but do we have to put a line in there that says, look, you can still have public-you can private funding for abortion? I mean, my amendment says that. But if you want a clarification, we‘re willing to put that in there.

We are not restricting insurance policies or individuals from using their own money to get abortion service.

MATTHEWS: Would you be open to an amendment to the bill that comes out of conference that says, even though no federal spending will go for abortion to support, to subsidize a policy which covers abortion, that insurance companies that now provide that kind of coverage to private customers must continue to offer it? Would you be open to that language?

STUPAK: As long as they pay for that policy 100 percent out of their pocket, I have no problem with that language.

MATTHEWS: So you wouldn‘t mind mandating that so they couldn‘t stop offering that coverage?

STUPAK: The law is very clear right now. Insurance companies can offer that benefit all they want. They can offer the abortion coverage all they want. Just don‘t ask us to pay for it. Just don‘t ask the federal government to pay for it. The majority of Americans agree with us. Don‘t use our federal tax dollars.

But insurance companies can provide it. There‘s no-we‘re not restricting them from providing abortion coverage. Just don‘t use our money to pay for it.

MATTHEWS: Which senators are you working with? Are you working with Senator Casey or Senator Nelson? Who are you working with to try to find common ground? And how do you find common ground with the very pro-choice people like Senator Boxer, for example, or Senator Feinstein, or any of the very pro-choice senators? How do you find common ground with them?

STUPAK: Well, if you‘re going to get the extremes on both sides, then you can‘t find common ground. I agree with you. You really have to try to find people much like myself who are the moderate who will actually try to work with leadership.

You know, the sad part about this is, we actually had an agreement Friday night before the vote. There was an agreement. This never had to be an issue. They were going to put part of my amendment into the manager‘s amendment. We didn‘t have to have this debate.

But, you know, unfortunately, the extremes took over and then they said, OK, now we‘re going to have to run the amendment. So, again, is there some common language? I think there probably is, because I think the ultimate goal here for everybody is to have health care for all Americans.

MATTHEWS: Well, good luck, sir. I hope you can find the common ground.

STUPAK: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: And you‘re in the position of strength, maybe you‘re the one that has to offer it. Anyway, thank you.

STUPAK: Thanks.

MATTHEWS: U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan.