mr. nadler: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. please take your conversations off the house floor. the gentleman will proceed. mr. nadler: before i begin, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, if the final amendment i am offering were to be adopted, is it not the case that the bill will be amended and that the house will then proceed to final passage right away? the speaker pro tempore: as the chair stated earlier today, if a motion to recommit with fortith with instructions is adopted, the amendment is reported by the chair of the committee and is immediately before the house. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. whether it is to deny women of reproductive or other health services or achieve equal pay for equal work, many women in america today feel under siege. indeed -- the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: th

mr. nadler: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the so-called prenatal nondiscrimination act. today the republican majority continues its war on women in a new and creative way. by attempting to capps late legislation that would destroy women's fundamental constitutional rights as the women's rights law. it is cynical but creative. trying to destroy women's constitutional rights and pretending that it is somehow being pro-women plays well to the far right wing base but does nothing to help american families get on their feet and put people back to work. this bill criminalizes abortion, prior to viability. it makes previability abortions a crime under certain circumstances, a flagrantly unconstitutional provision under roe v. wade. under this bill, the relative who disagreed with the woman's choice would be able to sue the doctor. the doctor would face years of litigation at great expense. a relative could even obtain an injunction blocking an abortion from going forward, merely by alleging that the

mr. nadler: as the gentleman from massachusetts says, this amendment seems to do nothing at all. none of the funds made available in this act may be used in contravention of the defense of marriage act. none of the funds are being used in contravention of the defense of marriage act. the only way i can see funds might be used in contravention of the defense of marriage act would be after the supreme court declared the defense of marriage act unconstitutional. if the court declares the defense of marriage act unconstitutional, then the constitution frankly would demand under the equal protection clause that funds be spent against the will of what had been the defense of marriage act. if the defense of marriage act is unconstitutional, then someone will, who is married under the laws of the state, some state that permits same-sex marriage, will demand that -- to have joint filing of income taxes or demand the benefits a spouse gets and it would be unconstitutional not to grant that. so this amendment is frankly silly and shouldn't go into the statute books because until and unless

mr. nadler: i rise in opposition to this amendment. we have had amendments and even bills on the floor in the past that were just as misguided and they all take the same form or similar form. either an amendment to say that no funds shall be expended for the justice department to argue for this in court or argue against that in court. that is one form of the amendment and this is one of those. and no funds should be expended or the courts -- no court shall have jurisdiction to consider the appeal in the case of x versus y or no kurt should consider a case on the subject matter of whatever. all of these are wrong and misguided whatever the merits of the specific claim may be, because they are violations of the separation of powers and of the proper functioning of the different branches of government. the justice department must argue for the executive branch's interpretation of the law and for its opinion as to constitutionality. that's its job. our job is to enact laws. the judiciary's job is to state what the law is. the executive bra

mr. nadler: it also begins to hopefully result in the federal government having a more humane and human policy on medical marijuana. i heard the gentleman from virginia say that the d.e.a. says there's no medical use for marijuana. it's true. they've said it. the d.e.a. has no credibility with people who have looked at this on this subject, on most subjects with respect to drugs these days. one reason is -- there is no proof of medical -- of successful medical use of marijuana is because the d.e.a. systematically tries to make sure there's no adequate research on that. denies the use of supplies of marijuana for medical research. but we have ample proof in the 16 states that have legalized the medical use of marijuana, we have ample anecdotal proof. we know that for people suffering pain, for people suffering nausea from aids and cancer, for many people, marijuana is the only thing that produces relief and enables them to eat and get sustenance and to regain weight and to perhaps regain health. we know this. we know this from thousands of cases. the d.e.a. doesn't know it because it refuses to

mr. nadler: i rise to urge my colleagues to become co-sponsors to my bill.while current law prohibits discrimination on pregnancy and directs employers to treat pregnancy as any other condition that might temporarily limit an employee's ability to perform job functions this has proven inadequate. courts are uncertain, even confused about the scope of the law. requiring congress to set the record straight. while several states have clarified pregnant workers' rights, this is a national problem that warrants a national solution. my bill would require an employer to make reasonable accommodations for these workers unless this creates an undue hardship on the employer. an employee would be prevented from forcing a pregnant worker to take an accommodation she does not want or need and would be prevented from forcing a pregnant worker to take a lead where another reasonable accommodation could keep her on the job. this is a simple solution our women and families should not be facing. i urge my colleagues to become a co-sponsor of this bill to ensure that a pregnan

mr. nadler: the argument already occurred, the money's already been spent. but putting that aside, what this says in effect is congress passed a law, any law that congress passes has a presumption of constitutionality. and this says that the justice department shall not defend the constitutionality of a law duly passed by congress because a subsequent congress doesn't agree. if the subsequent congress doesn't agree with what the previous congress does, we should repeal the law. and then there'd be nothing to defend. but if you don't have the votes to repeal the law, and on the merits i would oppose repealing the law, obviously, but if you don't have the votes to repeal the law, don't say that the justice department shouldn't defend the constitutionality of the law passed by congress if that law is challenged in court. now, in marbury vs. madison, the courts said, it is distinctly the job of the judiciary to decide what the law is. it's our job in congress to decide to pass the law, it's executive's duty to faithfully execute the law, it's the judiciary's dut