MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining us now is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois.

Congresswoman Schakowsky, thanks very much for coming on the show

tonight.

REP. JAN SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: Thanks, Rachel.

MADDOW: I know you`ve said that you had worked closely with

conservatives in the House to make sure that the House bill didn`t provide

any federal funding for abortion. But you found out that that wasn`t

enough. Conservative Democrats, like Congressman Stupak, wanted new

restrictions on abortion. How has this fight evolved in the House?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, early on, the pro-choice caucus, which is over 100-

some members in the House realized that we will accept the status quo as

the rules around abortion -- in other words, that except for rape, incense

or life of the mother, that no public dollars would be used for health

care. That was called the Hyde Amendment, and we were agreeing that in the

new configuration with the health care exchanges, that we would maintain

that. And we devise language that passed the House committee that did

exactly that.

It was at the last minute that Bart Stupak lined up enough Democrats

and Republicans by saying that his amendment really was the status quo --

and as you so clearly explained, it was not at all, that this went way past

the current law. And I think that there were enough Democrats who believed

that that was true, that it was the status quo that they voted for.

That doesn`t exist any more. And I don`t see on the verge of passing

health care, that we`re going to see now a lot of members -- enough members

willing to go back to the Stupak language to defeat the whole bill, because

that`s what would happen. Because the pro-choice members, 42 of us who

signed a letter who said that we want to maintain the status quo, will not

vote for it if it has the Stupak language. And the taste for passage of

this bill right now is just too great to let it be defeated by this.

MADDOW: So, just -- to be clear, you and those 40-some odd members of

the House, when you said last year that you would not only work to keep

this language out of the final bill, but that if it was still included in

the final bill, that you would vote no -- you stand by that. If the Stupak

language is in the final House Senate compromise bill, you will vote

against it?

SCHAKOWSKY: Absolutely true, and I think that that is the

understanding of those who are working on the final product of the

legislation, that it`s not going to pass if it has the Stupak language in

it.

Now, you also mentioned the Nelson language, and that was in the

Senate bill, and now, is -- remains in the president`s proposal. And we`re

very concerned about that as well. And hopefully we`re going to find a

process to change that, because -- you know, we tried this two check deal

in the past.

In 2002, there was the Trade Act that allowed for 65 percent

government support for some insurance for displaced workers. The insurance

companies flatly said, "We will not take two checks." And so what happened

is, that the worker had to send 35 percent to the IRS, then 100 percent was

sent by the IRS to the insurance companies. Very complicated, but that was

the only way that it would work, because the insurance companies said no to

two checks.

We believe that that they will say no to two checks to cover abortion

and the rest of health care services, too. So, we`re very worried that it

will, in effect, keep women from having access to abortions.

MADDOW: I feel like it`s one thing to have a fight about abortion

rights in this country, it`s another thing to have a fight about health

reform, but to try to make the twin meet and try to fight the abortion

battles through health reform is turning out to be both a political and

practical disaster. That is my opinion on it.

I do want to ask you about one other subject today --

SCHAKOWSKY: OK.

MADDOW: -- in which you were making big news today, a proposal of

yours to stop private contractors from doing work that military personnel

used to do. This is a big deal proposal, this would dramatically change

the way that things have shifted in military affairs in this country over

the past eight years. What`s the impetus of this bill for you?

SCHAKOWSKY: Well, we have companies like Blackwater, but not only

Blackwater, that are actually putting our own troops in danger, ruining the

reputation of our country, murdering people and still getting taxpayer

dollars to be contractors -- private military contractors, hired guns,

mercenaries in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and actually, other places

around the world.

What this says is that no private company will be able to do these

sensitive missions any longer, that we`re going to phase them out. That

would include training programs for the Afghan police, for example, that

Blackwater seems to be at the head of the line to get over $1 billion

contract.

This is a repeat offender. This is a company who has really imperiled

in numerous occasions and should not be allowed to do anything. So, I --

we`ve introduced a bill, Bernie Sanders and I, we have 17 cosponsors in the

House, to phase out the use of these private contractors.

And I`m actually soliciting, Rachel, citizen supporters for my

proposal at JanShakowsky.org. I hope people will go there and sign my

petition to show that we need to take care of our military and not have

these mercenaries running these wars. It seems that we can`t do without

them anymore and I think that`s a very dangerous situation for our own

national security.

MADDOW: Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois -- thank

you very much for joining us tonight and for making news on the number of

subjects. I really appreciate it.

SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you, Rachel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source