dr. fleming and others. and while we have dr. fleming's assurances that in his view the amendment does not walk back what we did last year, we will continue to work with him on the language as we go forward to the full committee markup. >> may i respond, mr. chairman? >> dr. fleming. >> i would say that we have run this language by outside legal organizations, constitutionalists, and i'll be happy to share with you or any other members offline about that. but i think i can reassure you that it won't have that impact. i yield back. >> mr. forbes? >> mr. chairman, i have enormous respect for mr. fleming -- >> [inaudible] gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> i have enormous respect for mr. fellowing and for many of the groups he says have looked over this, and i know that they have said exactly what he says. but i also glee with you that i hope we can massage this wording, because i think that this worded is problematic. when you start saying that word "accommodate," it may do some things that we really don't want it to do. so

dr. fleming? >> no. >> dr. fleming votes no. mr. barber? >> no. >> mr. barber votes no. mr. coffman?> no. >> mr. coffman votes no. mr. carson? is. >>. no. >> mr. carson votes no. mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> ms. shea-porter? >> no. >> ms. shea-porter votes no. mr. gibson? >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. [applause] hartsler? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler voted no. mr. kilmer? >> no. >> mr. kilmer votes no. dr. heck? >> no. >> dr. heck votes no. mr. castro? >> no. >> mr. castro votes no. mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> mr. runyon votes no. ms. duckworth? >> aye. >> ms. duckworth votes aye. mr. scott? >> no. >> mr. scott votes no. mr. peters? >> no. >> mr. peters votes no. mr. lose sew? >> no. >> mr. palazzo votes no. ms. roby? >> yes -- no. >> ms. roby votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks? mr. cease si? >> no. >> mr. veasey votes no. mr. nugent? >> no. >> mr. nugent votes no. mr. cook? >> no. >> mr. cook votes no. mr. bridenstine? >> no. >> mr. bridenstine votes no. dr. win stop? >> no. >> miss velour sky? >> no. >> and mr. brooks? mr. palazzo? [inaudible conversations] >> clerk -- clerk will report t

dr. fleming -- aye. mr. barber -- aye. mr. kaufman -- aye. mr. carson -- aye. ms. shea porter -- aye. mrs. hartzler -- aye. mr. kilmer -- aye. -- aye.ro duckworth -- aye. mr. palazzo -- aye. mrs. robie -- aye. -- aye.ks veasey -- aye. mr. nugent -- aye. mr. cook -- aye. mr. wenstrup -- aye. mr. jones, mr. jones. >> the bill passed, right? >> that is correct, sir. >> the motion is agreed to. it is laid upon the table. for what purposes the gentleman from washington seek recognition. >> i would like to assert the right of any member to file an alert for inclusion into the house on the bill just ordered reported. >> pursuant to clause 2l, all members are committed to not less than two calendar days. fork unanimous consent clerical changes be removed from the bill on provisions that would cause the beer bill -- bill or end in an earmark. i ask unanimous consent that the chairman the authorized to make such notions as are to go to conference with us. without objection, so ordered. finally, i would like to thank the council team who worked so tirelessly on drafting this mark. who areof our

dr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. fleming: i want to thank the gentlelady and all the great work she's done, the gentlelady from north carolina, for all of her work on this. i rise today, mr. speaker, to support the rule and the underlying bill. the pain-capable unborn child protection act. it is so vital. my background, i'm a physician who has delivered hundreds of babies during my career. in addition to that, i'm a husband of 35 years, a father of four, two boys, two girls. a grandfather of two boys and soon, in six weeks, grandfather of a little girl. a little granddaughter. and i'm so proud. let me tell you a moment about what i witnessed. about the time of the 20 weeks, midterm, the ultrasound, the 4-d ultrasound now gives such an amazing view into the window of that womb. and what did i see? i could see that that little girl looks just like her big brother. number two, in another frame, she's sucking her thumb. and then in another frame she's holding up two fingers as though to say, be patient, i'll be out soon.

dr. fleming. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. fleming: i thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. mr. speaker, let's exam what a chaplain really is. a chaplain is a person who is a minister of the faith. someone who ministers on the basis of a belief and a deity, a higher power. who is associated with or attached to a secular organization. an example, right here in this house each morning begins, each legislative day begin was a prayer from our chaplain. -- begins with a prayer from our chaplain. back home the hospital i am associated with, my good friend, a baptist pastor, is chaplain of our hospital. and so this goes to the core of the discussion. a chaplain is a person who is a man or woman of the faith of conscience, of spirituality, who ministers to those with respect to a secular organization. i just heard the gentleman say, well, we need eightieses -- atheists chaplains, to me an oxymoron torques minister to the spiritual needs of soldiers. well, by definition as an atheist he doesn't or she

dr. john fleming from louisiana. i know you can provide us with extraordinary insights onto the problems of the implementation of the new health care law. but i think it's important to point out you are the co-author of the health care conscience rights act. we are thankful. mr. fleming: i thank you for bringing us together this evening and with a number of colleagues talking about an extremely important topic today and that is health care conscience rights. and you heard some of the major points here and i'm going to touch on more. on august 1, 2013, the administration's health care mandate will take effect. it will force religious organizations, american family businesses, universities and countless others across the great country of ours to violate the deeply held moral and religious beliefs we have. it is a serious afront to religious freedom and leaves businesses, nonprofit religious organizations and individuals with three terrible decisions. first, it could violate their conscious and comply with the mandate.