[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7169-S7173]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 810, S. 2754, S. 3504

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time 
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the 
Democratic leader, the Senate proceed en bloc to the following bills 
under the following agreement:
  H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, discharged from the 
HELP Committee; S. 2754, Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies 
Enhancement Act, discharged from the HELP Committee; S. 3504, Fetus 
Farming Prohibition Act of 2006.
  I further ask consent there be a total of 12 hours of debate equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided further 
that no amendments be in order to any of the measures; further, that 
following the use or yielding back of time the bills be read a third 
time and the Senate proceed to three consecutive votes in the following 
order with no intervening action or debate: S. 3504, S. 2754, H.R. 810.

[[Page S7170]]

  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that any bill that does not receive 
60 votes in the affirmative, the vote on passage be vitiated and the 
bill be returned to its previous status on the calendar or in the HELP 
Committee; and further, other than as provided in this agreement, it 
not be in order for the Senate to consider any bill or amendment 
relating to stem cell research during the remainder of the 109th 
Congress.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that if any one of these three bills or all of them 
receive 60 votes, they would be passed.
  Mr. FRIST. That is correct. Each of these bills will have a 60-vote 
threshold.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, that I extend my 
appreciation to the distinguished majority leader. This has been 
difficult. I know that. I would rather that we would just be going 
forward with H.R. 810, but we will take what we have.
  I think this bill is going to be bring peace and comfort to Nancy 
Reagan and many people just like Nancy Reagan who believe that what we 
are going to do next month, I hope--is that right?
  Mr. FRIST. In all likelihood, but at some mutually agreeable time.
  Mr. REID. Will be something that will give comfort to Nancy Reagan 
and people like her about treatment and maybe cures which can come from 
some of these dread diseases.
  I think it is an important day for the Senate.
  Again, I tell the leader how much I appreciate this and I speak for 
every Democrat and I speak for people throughout the country. I know 
this has not been easy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. As he knows, 
we have been working a long time to bring, in an appropriate fashion, 
these bills to the floor. The unanimous consent agreement that we just 
obtained says that we will address three bills--I will have more to say 
about those shortly--over the course of the 12-hour period and then 
have the 60-vote threshold on each of those.
  It was several weeks ago that I reiterated my commitment to work with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring the debate about 
Federal funding for stem cell research to the Senate floor. We have 
been working very hard in meeting after meeting to do just that.
  I just propounded a unanimous consent request which was agreed to 
that had three pieces of legislation--the Alternative Pluripotent Stem 
Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, 
which is H.R. 810, and the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006.
  I will have a little bit more to say about each of these.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be very quick because I know the 
leader has things to do.
  In entering this agreement, which we have just done, I am relying on 
the leader's good faith--basically his word and reputation--that we 
will do this before we get out of here by the October break. Is that 
his intention?
  Mr. FRIST. It is my intention, as it is worded in here, that the two 
of us will agree upon a time. It is my intention after getting over 
this first hurdle to do this in the not too distant future before we 
leave.
  Mr. REID. I hope we can arrive at a time and agree that we can get 
this done.
  Mr. FRIST. We will.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment a little bit on the approach 
and the rationale behind these bills which have been a long time in 
coming. This is a very similar to the approach that we tried about a 
year ago, but because of timing and a whole host of reasons we couldn't 
get a unanimous consent agreement. So I am pleased that we are there.
  I am pro-life. I personally believe that human life begins at 
conception in large part because it is the moment that the organism is 
complete--immature, yes, but complete.
  An embryo is nascent human life. It is genetically distinct as that 
individual; it is biologically human; it is living. This position is 
consistent with my faith. But to me it isn't just a matter of faith; it 
is a matter of science.
  Our development is this continuous process; it is gradual; it is 
chronological; and at one point in time all of us in this room were 
embryos. That embryo is human life at that very earliest stage of 
development, which is continuous, which again is chronological over 
time. And accordingly, that embryo has more significance, it has more 
moral value, and thus it deserves our utmost respect and dignity.
  I also believe, as do other scientists--I would say countless other 
scientists, clinicians, and doctors--that all stem cells, but 
specifically embryonic stem cells, hold a very specific, unique promise 
for some therapies and potential cures: diabetes, Parkinson's disease, 
Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries. Stem cells 
offer hope for treatment that other lines of research simply haven't 
offered.
  Embryonic stem cells are what we call ``pluripotent,'' adult stem 
cells. You have embryonic stem cells, and these embryonic stem cells 
are ``pluripotential.'' What that means is that they have two 
remarkable qualities that really no other cell in the human body has. 
That is why they are so unique. The embryonic stem cells have the 
capacity to become any other type of tissue that is unique to them.
  Second, they have this remarkable capacity of being able to renew 
themselves--copy themselves again and again and again and again 
indefinitely.
  It is those two properties, the ability to copy itself over time and 
to become any sort of tissue, which makes it specifically unique and so 
remarkable. That is why we have so much potential hope for cure and for 
therapy.
  Right now, there is the challenge; there is the ethical challenge. 
This is why it is so hard for us and for people all across this country 
as they listen to the debate; that is, to derive these embryonic stem 
cells using the technology that we know today. The embryo itself has to 
be altered in some way or destroyed.
  That is the heart of the ethical concern. That is why I have made it 
clear that while I strongly support Federal funding for embryonic stem 
cell research, that Federal funding should only be provided within a 
system, a comprehensive system of ethical oversight, strict safeguards 
in this ethical system that are overseeing this financial investment. 
That comprehensive oversight has to have strict safeguards and public 
accountability. It has to have complete transparency so we ensure that 
this new research, this evolving research unfolds over time within 
accepted ethical bounds.
  It is interesting. I came to this floor about 5 years ago. It was 5 
years ago sometime around either June or July. At that time, I laid out 
a comprehensive proposal to promote stem cell research within this 
ethical framework.
  That is interesting because I talked about adult stem cells and 
embryonic stem cells. At that point in time, embryonic stem cells were 
only 3 years old in terms of discovery. They had been around a long 
time, but we only discovered them really in about 1998. At that point 
in time, I proposed 10 specific interdependent principles.
  At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record those principles.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Frist Principles on Human Stem Cell Research

       Stem cell research holds tremendous potential for treating 
     serious illness and disease. Because the embryonic stem cells 
     derived from five to six day-old blastocysts are 
     ``pluripotent'' (appearing capable of indefinite self-renewal 
     and differentiation into all cell types), research conducted 
     with embryonic stem cells derived from the roughly 20-30 
     cells contained in the inner cell mass of the blastocyst has 
     the potential to help advance treatments for diabetes, 
     Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, leukemia, spinal 
     cord injuries and a number of other diseases and conditions. 
     Research using adult stem cells also holds great promise, 
     although there may be characteristics of adult stem cells 
     that limit the medical potential of this research.
       Embryonic stem cell research--and the derivation of stem 
     cells from blastocysts--raises significant ethical and moral 
     questions. Many believe that these days-old embryos are human 
     life and should not be used for research purposes under any 
     circumstance. Others believe that, because such

[[Page S7171]]

     embryos exist outside the womb at this early developmental 
     stage, they are not yet life. Still others believe that, 
     regardless of whether such embryos are life, the potential of 
     embryonic stem cells should outweigh moral or ethical 
     concerns about their use for potentially life-saving 
     research.
       These competing concerns make it extremely difficult to 
     reach consensus on a federal policy in this area. 
     Nonetheless, because both embryonic and adult stem cell 
     research may contribute to significant medical and health 
     advancement, research on both should be federally funded 
     within a carefully regulated, fully transparent framework 
     that ensures respect for the moral significance of the human 
     embryo.
       The unique interplay of this promising but uncharted new 
     science with the ethical and moral considerations of life, 
     disease and health is continually evolving and presenting new 
     challenges. Therefore, we must ensure a strong, 
     comprehensive, publicly accountable oversight structure that 
     is responsive on an ongoing basis to moral, social and 
     scientific considerations.
       Federal funding for stem cell research should be contingent 
     on the implementation of strict new safeguards and public 
     accountability governing this new, evolving research. The 
     following 10 points are essential components of a 
     comprehensive framework that allows stem cell research to 
     progress in a manner respectful of both the moral 
     significance of human embryos and the potential of stem cell 
     research to improve health.
       1. Ban Embryo Creation for Research: The creation of human 
     embryos solely for research purposes should be strictly 
     prohibited.
       2. Continue Funding Ban on Derivation: Strengthen and 
     codify the current ban on federal funding for the derivation 
     of embryonic stem cells.
       3. Ban Human Cloning: Prohibit all human cloning to prevent 
     the creation and exploitation of life for research purposes.
       4. Increase Adult Stem Cell Research Funding: Increase 
     federal funding for research on adult stem cells to ensure 
     the pursuit of all promising areas of stem cell research.
       5. Provide Funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research Only 
     From Blastocysts That Would Otherwise Be Discarded: Allow 
     federal funding for research using only those embryonic stem 
     cells derived from blastocysts that are left over after in 
     vitro fertilization (IVF) and would otherwise be discarded.
       6. Require a Rigorous Informed Consent Process: To ensure 
     that blastocysts used for stem cell research are only those 
     that would otherwise be discarded, require a comprehensive 
     informed consent process establishing a clear separation 
     between potential donors' primary decision to donate 
     blastocysts for adoption or to discard blastocysts and their 
     subsequent option to donate blastocysts for research 
     purposes. Such a process, modeled in part on well-established 
     and broadly accepted organ and tissue donation practices, 
     will ensure that donors are fully informed of all their 
     options.
       7. Limit Number of Stem Cell Lines: Restrict federally-
     funded research using embryonic stem cells derived from 
     blastocysts to a limited number of cell lines. In addition, 
     authorize federal funding for embryonic stem stem cell 
     research for five years to ensure ongoing Congressional 
     oversight.
       8. Establish A Strong Public Research Oversight System: 
     Establish appropriate public oversight mechanisms, including 
     a national research registry, to ensure the transparent, in-
     depth monitoring of federally-funded and federally-regulated 
     stem cell research and to promote ethical, high quality 
     research standards.
       9. Require Ongoing, Independent Scientific and Ethical 
     Review: Establish an ongoing scientific review of stem cell 
     research by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and create an 
     independent Presidential advisory panel to monitor evolving 
     bioethical issues in the area of stem cell research. In 
     addition, require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     to report to Congress annually on the status of federal 
     grants for stem cell research, the number of stem cell lines 
     created, the results of stem cell research, the number of 
     grant applications received and awarded, and the amount of 
     federal funding provided.
       10. Strengthen and Harmonize Fetal Tissue Research 
     Restrictions: Because stem cell research would be subject to 
     new, stringent federal requirements, ensure that informed 
     consent and oversight regulations applicable to federally-
     funded fetal tissue research are consistent with these new 
     rules.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I also said at the time that policymakers 
and the public must often reassess the research, this new research, 
this evolving research and the circumstances under which it is 
conducted.
  As I said then--and I believe now--we must do all we can to pursue 
promising alternative strategies that hold the same potential, the 
potential for developing the pluripotent stem cell lines without 
damaging the embryo, without altering the embryo, without destroying 
the embryo or nascent human life.
  Shortly after that time--that was 5 years ago--the President 
announced his policy for embryonic stem cell research. That was 
remarkable at the time. I think it was August 11. It was Federally 
funded embryonic stem cell research for the first time ever. It did so 
within that ethical framework. It showed respect for human life.
  That is why I believe it is important for us to have this debate on 
the floor of the Senate.
  The policy also restricted the embryonic stem cell funding only to 
those stem cell lines that had been derived prior to his announcement. 
That was the cutoff line. At that time it was widely believed that 
there were 78 such embryonic stem cell lines that would be available 
for Federal funding; 78 we thought at the time when President put forth 
his proposal. Unfortunately, over time we have learned that had not 
been the case. What we thought would have been 78 lines today we 
realize only became 22 cell lines--22 lines--that are eligible.
  Moreover, those lines unexpectedly--we didn't know it at the time. 
That is why it is so important to constantly come back and modify, if 
necessary, but reevaluate policies. Those lines unexpectedly after 
several generations are starting to became less stable and less 
replicative than we had initially anticipated.
  Science is fascinating. Just as an aside, they seem to be acquiring 
and losing chromosomes. They are losing what we call the normal carrier 
type. They are potentially losing growth control, all of which means 
these cell lines out there are less useful in terms of research, in 
terms of opening up that potential, those possibilities, that hope for 
cures.
  Also, another complication which we didn't realize at the time--some 
scientists did but we didn't know what the impact would be--all of 
these cell lines were grown on mouse-feeder cells, which we have 
learned since will limit their future potential for using those 
clinically or in clinical therapy in humans. There are concerns, for 
example, about viral contamination.
  These are limitations we didn't realize at the time but we do know 
today, 5 years later.
  While embryonic stem cell research is still in the very early stage, 
we have to be careful not to over-promise. And when people look at 
these bills coming through, although we want to open up that 
possibility for hope, we cannot over-promise.
  The limitations we put in place in 2001 will over time show our 
ability to investigate new treatments for certain diseases--the mouse-
feeder cells, the changes that we are seeing in the initial cell lines, 
the fact that there are fewer cells lines.
  Therefore, I think it is the responsible thing for us to do, to come 
to the floor and consider modifying that policy, updating that policy 
based on what we have learned, which is why, with reservation, I 
support the House-passed embryonic stem cell research bill, H.R. 810.
  Let me be clear on this particular bill. Because again and again 
people come forward saying there are so many deficiencies in the bill. 
And I see deficiencies in the bill. If circumstances were different, I 
would seek to ensure that a much stronger ethical and scientific 
oversight mechanism be in place, which is not part of that particular 
bill. Things like a clear prohibition on financial or other incentives 
between science and fertility clinics, more explicit requirements 
around informed consent, all of which is not in that particular bill.
  But I have said that we should debate and vote on that House-passed 
bill. I, thus, have asked that it be included in the package of bills 
that we put forward for consideration on which we just got by unanimous 
consent agreement to debate and vote.
  Moreover, as we consider embryonic stem cell research, we shouldn't 
diminish in any way the promise or slow the progress of research on 
adult stem cells or cells that have pluripotential capability but 
aren't strictly embryonic stem cells.
  To date, adult stem cell research is the only type of stem cell 
research that is actively used in humans for treatment, for therapy, to 
cure diseases.
  As a transplant surgeon--I transplant hearts and lungs--today we can 
transplant these adult stem cells. It is life-saving. It has saved the 
lives of thousands and thousands of people. Part of that is that we 
have much longer experience with adult stem cells. We have probably 
three decades of experience

[[Page S7172]]

with the adult stem cells. We only have about 8 years of experience 
with the embryonic stem cells.

  With more Federal support and emphasis, newer methods of deriving the 
pluripotential cells are being developed and have proven themselves in 
animal models--not yet in humans--fully developed, and we need to 
continue to support that research. It will have huge scientific and 
clinical payoffs.
  Just as important, they may bridge the moral and ethical differences 
among people who now hold very different views on stem cell research 
because these newer alternative methods avoid the destruction of any 
human embryos. It is these forms of research which may offer not only a 
way forward to these new treatments and these new cures but also a way 
out of these ethical dilemmas posed by other forms of research.
  That is why in this package I asked the Senate to also continue 
legislation to enhance this support for alternatives to embryonic stem 
cell research. I am very pleased that Senators Santorum and Specter 
have joined together and crafted the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell 
Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754, which is similar to legislation I 
worked on with a number of our colleagues--most specifically Senator 
Isakson from Georgia--last year. I do encourage every Senator to 
support these new alternative ways of reaching pluripotency in cells. 
It is very exciting research. There is no reason this legislation 
should not truly unite us as a body and be something everyone can 
support.
  The third bill that has been included in this unanimous consent 
request is the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006, S. 3504. One may 
ask, what is fetus farming? It is the implantation and gestation of an 
embryo in a human or animal for the purpose of aborting for research. 
As far as I am aware, fetus farming is not a method that is currently 
employed but a method that has been proposed. It is not out of the 
realm of possibility. Therefore, Senators Brownback and Santorum have 
proposed legislation which would draw a clear line which should not be 
crossed.
  Those are the three bills which we will be debating. Several of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the Senate over 
the last several weeks and months to suggest we take up H.R. 810 or 
that we immediately take it up. However, I am absolutely convinced that 
all three bills I have mentioned address the profound ethical questions 
surrounding the promise of stem cells, the hope that these stem cells 
will lead to cure and therapy. That is why I believe it is only fair on 
an issue of this magnitude that Senators be given the courtesy and 
respect of addressing all three of these very different ideas, these 
areas which are surrounded in some ethical concern but also are 
important to medicine, science, and health.
  The other proposals for handling this include taking a bill out and 
seeing what happens. Because these bills are so complex and Members 
have so many potential amendments, we have taken this course of having 
3 bills with the 60-vote thresholds.
  I thank my colleagues. We covered the spectrum. It has actually taken 
several months to pull together this unanimous consent request and 
agreement. I am very pleased we now have a process in place, the timing 
of which we can determine or I will determine in consultation with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the unanimous consent agreement 
on stem cell research legislation propounded by our majority leader, 
Senator Frist.
  Overall, this is a fair proposal and it is certainly a matter that 
this Senate should be prepared to debate and vote upon as soon as 
possible.
  It is over a year since the House of Representatives acted in a 
bipartisan fashion to adopt legislation, H.R. 810 that would increase 
the number of stem cell lines eligible for Federal funding if those 
stem cell lines were derived from embryos no longer needed for in vitro 
fertilization.
  This is a good bill that Senators Specter and Harkin have urged on 
this body since 2001. It is time to debate and vote upon this proposal.
  The unanimous consent agreement also accommodates the interests of 
other Senators by including two other bills in this package.
  I believe I can support these other two measures which are designed 
to outlaw so-called fetal farming and to encourage alterative means of 
devising new stem cell lines.
  While I do not think that the alternative measure can or should be 
thought of as a replacement for the new cell lines that will be derived 
if H.R. 810 is passed, I am supportive of this type of research.
  The stem cell issue is ripe for debate and resolution and I think 
that this unanimous consent agreement will move us down the road in a 
constructive fashion.
  While this unanimous consent agreement does not address the issue of 
cloning, or somatic cell research as it is known in the language of 
science, we will have ample time to debate these matters in the future. 
And as much as Senator Feinstein and I and others would like to debate 
and vote on our bill to ban reproductive cloning and to erect ethical 
safeguards to govern therapeutic cloning that advances the science of 
regenerative medicine, we can agree to have this somewhat different 
debate on a different day.
  It is time for the Senate to vote on the Castle-DeGette bill that 
passed the House last year. Scientists tell us that there is great 
advantage to expanding the number of stem cell lines eligible for 
Federal funding.
  Here is what one Nobel Laureate, Paul Berg of Stanford University, 
has said about the importance of passing this legislation:

       Dear Senator Feinstein,
       The Senate will shortly be considering legislation to 
     permit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund 
     research with additional and new and existing human embryonic 
     stem cell (hESC) lines. As a staunch supporter of biomedical 
     research and particularly research with hESCs, I trust that 
     you will exert your influence to ensure passage of H.R 810. 
     Scientists engaged in ESC research are counting on you and 
     like-minded Senate colleagues to assure its passage. The 
     President must also be persuaded not to veto this legislation 
     for if we continue on the path he set five years ago United 
     States investigators will be out of the running in converting 
     embryonic stem cells into important new therapies. It is 
     especially frustrating and demeaning that American scientists 
     are prohibited from using their NIH grant funds for research 
     with the hundreds of hESC line generated outside the United 
     States or generated in this country with private funding.
       Paul Berg

  When our Nobel Award winning scientists, like Dr. Berg, are telling 
us how important this research is, we should all pay careful attention.
  Many among the American public agree that the time has come for the 
Senate to take up and pass the legislation that the House has already 
passed over a year ago.

  Let me just share with you a letter that I received from Nancy Reagan 
on this important issue.

                                       Office of Nancy Reagan,

                                     Los Angeles, CA, May 1, 2006.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Orrin, Thank you for your continued commitment to 
     helping the millions of Americans who suffer from devastating 
     and disabling diseases. Your support has given so much hope 
     to so many.
       It has been nearly a year since the United States House of 
     Representatives first approved the stem cell legislation that 
     would open the research so we could fully unleash its 
     promise. For those who are waiting every day for scientific 
     progress to help their loved ones, the wait for United States 
     Senate action has been very difficult and hard to comprehend.
       I understand that the United States Senate is now 
     considering voting on H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research 
     Enhancement Act, sometime this month. Orrin, I know I can 
     count on friends like you to help make sure this happens. 
     There is just no more time to wait.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Nancy Reagan.

  I think that Mrs. Reagan has it exactly right.
  We need to debate and vote on this issue and we need to do it now. 
That is what I understand that the unanimous consent agreement proposed 
by Senator Frist will accomplish. I am pleased that all of my 
colleagues have agreed to this unanimous consent agreement.
  This agreement is acceptable to some of the staunchest opponents of 
H.R. 810. For example, I do not think that anyone has been as outspoken 
in their opposition to H.R. 810 than my friend from Kansas, Senator 
Brownback. But I understand that this unanimous consent agreement is 
acceptable to him.

  Both Senator Brownback and I--and many others--might have crafted a

[[Page S7173]]

slightly different unanimous consent agreement--but I think that most 
would agree that what is being proposed by Senator Frist gives a fair 
series of votes that could be accomplished in a reasonable amount of 
floor time in a part of the year when floor time is becoming a precious 
quantity.
  Stem cell research presents a great opportunity for scientists to 
gain knowledge that can help those families in America and around the 
world in which loved ones suffer from currently incurable diseases such 
as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's to name 
a few.
  In order to develop a better understanding of the causes and cures of 
many diseases tomorrow, we must conduct a vigorous research program 
today.
  And let me be clear, cures will not happen overnight or will come 
easily. We have years of hard work ahead of us. But we have much work 
to do today to bring about these future advances.

  In my view, what this unanimous consent agreement does is to move the 
ball forward. I am pleased that no one appears to be objecting to this 
agreement so we can give this matter the debate and votes that it 
deserves.
  The House has acted on an important bill and, in this case, I believe 
that the Senate should give the American people a simple, an up-or-down 
vote on this measure.
  I think that each of these three bills can gain substantial 
majorities.
  I support the unanimous consent agreement. I am prepared to vote and 
hope my colleagues will support this agreement that will allow us to 
debate and have votes in a manner that does not allow parliamentary 
tactics to unduly delay or otherwise obstruct debate on this important 
legislation.
  This unanimous consent agreement is a step in the right direction and 
I look forward to the debate on these three bills which can benefit the 
American public so much down the road.
  This is good news for individuals like young Cody Anderson of Utah, 
who suffers from juvenile diabetes. This is good news for many 
individuals.
  I commend the majority leader and my colleagues for tonight's 
agreement on a way to move forward.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________