Dingell, Debbie RSS Articles

Dingell, Colleagues Urge Trump to Maintain Protections Against Chinese Automobiles, Protect American Auto Workers and Manufacturing

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) and 26 of her colleagues in the House of Representatives are urging President Trump to maintain protection of the U.S. auto industry from Chinese automobiles and connected vehicle technologies. The lawmakers are also pushing the administration to avoid opening the U.S. market to Chinese automobile imports and manufacturing as part of ongoing U.S.-China trade discussions, as well as protect the American automotive manufacturing base, workers, critical supply chains, and national security.

“The U.S. automotive industry supports approximately 10 million American jobs and sustains a broad manufacturing ecosystem that includes steel, semiconductors, batteries, electronics, machinery, and thousands of suppliers,” said the lawmakers. “These initiatives are critical to ensuring the United States has a clear and lasting framework to protect our automotive market, workers, critical supply chains, and national security.”

The lawmakers also highlighted the lack of a level playing field in the global marketplace due to unfair practices used by the Chinese government: “China is rapidly expanding its global automotive presence through massive government subsidies, state-directed investment, below-market financing, and other non-market policies and practices. These policies and practices have incentivized Chinese automakers to build significant excess production capacity to aggressively expand overseas, including through opaque corporate structures and partnerships. These subsidized Chinese automakers sell vehicles globally at unfair, artificially low prices that American manufacturers simply cannot compete with. In addition to government financing, Chinese automotive manufacturing relies on forced labor and other exploitative labor practices.”

Congresswoman Dingell’s latest effort follows an April 2026 letter to President Trump from her and 73 of her House Democratic colleagues urging the president to block Chinese automakers from accessing the United States market. In May 2026, she introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit the importation, manufacture, and sale of connected vehicles, software, and hardware linked to China. In June 2026, the congresswoman raised concerns with the administration’s decision to permit Chinese connected vehicles to enter the United States, warning that allowing this poses a serious threat to American national security, driver privacy, and the competitiveness of the domestic auto industry. In August 2026, Congresswoman Dingell introduced another bipartisan bill that would direct the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to conduct a comprehensive study of the national and economic security risks foreign adversaries pose to the United States automotive industry.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below

Dear Mr. President:

As you prepare for your upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, we write to emphasize the importance of protecting the United States automotive industry, its workers, and our economic and national security from the growing threat posed by China. We urge you to maintain strong protections against Chinese automobiles and connected vehicle technologies and ensure that China does not gain access to our market through direct imports, local production, and other avenues of circumvention.

China is rapidly expanding its global automotive presence through massive government subsidies, state-directed investment, below-market financing, and other non-market policies and practices. These policies and practices have incentivized Chinese automakers to build significant excess production capacity to aggressively expand overseas, including through opaque corporate structures and partnerships. These subsidized Chinese automakers sell vehicles globally at unfair, artificially low prices that American manufacturers simply cannot compete with. In addition to government financing, Chinese automotive manufacturing relies on forced labor and other exploitative labor practices.

From January through August 2026, China exported more than 6.2 million passenger vehicles, exceeding its passenger vehicle exports for all of 2025. In August 2026 alone, Chinese passenger vehicle exports increased more than 67 percent from the previous year. Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle exports have grown even more rapidly, even as China’s domestic automotive market has weakened. These trends demonstrate the growing importance of overseas markets to China’s automotive sector and the scale of the challenge facing American manufacturers and workers.

Chinese automotive brands accounted for approximately 17 percent of new vehicle sales in Mexico during the first half of 2026, up from 14 percent a year earlier, with sales reaching 137,525 vehicles. At the same time, Chinese manufacturers continue to explore investment and production opportunities in Mexico. Canada has also established an annual quota of 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles at a 6.1 percent tariff rate, with the quota set to increase by 6.5 percent annually.

These developments underscore the need to ensure that our trade laws and North American agreements cannot become pathways for Chinese automakers to circumvent U.S. protections. A vehicle assembled in Canada or Mexico must not be considered free of the risks associated with Chinese ownership, control, technology, software, hardware, or supply chains. We must ensure that Chinese companies cannot establish a foothold elsewhere in North America and use that presence to gain access to the U.S. market, undermining our trade protections and exposing American workers and manufacturers to the same heavily subsidized, non-market competition we are seeking to address. Nor would a Chinese-owned or controlled manufacturing plant in the United States, even one employing American workers, eliminate the broader economic and national security risks posed by China. Moreover, we urge you not to open the U.S. market to Chinese automobile imports as part of ongoing U.S.-China trade discussions. Securing our North American supply chains through the USMCA review will mean little if Chinese vehicles are permitted to enter the U.S. market directly through our front door.

This is not just a matter of economics but of national security as well. As you know, modern automobiles are increasingly connected computing platforms, incorporating cameras, microphones, sensors, telecommunications equipment, software, and other technologies capable of collecting and transmitting significant amounts of information. Connected vehicles can collect troves of sensitive data about occupants, locations, surroundings, and infrastructure. Connected vehicles and technologies developed or produced by foreign adversaries present a myriad of opportunities for misuse of data or sabotage, such as through indirect or alternative connections that enable remote access or interference. There is a heightened risk when these technologies are controlled by a foreign adversary with a demonstrated interest in undermining democracy and exerting its strategic and economic position.

Congress has recognized the need to address these economic and national security risks and is taking bipartisan, bicameral action to strengthen protections against Chinese automobiles and connected vehicle technologies. Building on existing regulatory restrictions, legislative efforts in both chambers would establish durable safeguards for vehicles, software, hardware, and other technologies linked to China and other foreign adversaries. These initiatives are critical to ensuring the United States has a clear and lasting framework to protect our automotive market, workers, critical supply chains, and national security.

The U.S. automotive industry supports approximately 10 million American jobs and sustains a broad manufacturing ecosystem that includes steel, semiconductors, batteries, electronics, machinery, and thousands of suppliers. A significant influx of heavily subsidized Chinese vehicles would put substantial pressure on this industrial base and threaten our manufacturing capacity and jobs that depend on it. Once critical manufacturing capacity is lost, rebuilding it becomes impossible without decades of significant public and private investment.

Additionally, China’s ambitions extend well beyond finished vehicles. Chinese companies have developed significant positions in batteries, critical minerals, components, software, and other technologies essential to the modern automobile. As China pursues joint ventures, licensing arrangements, supply agreements, and other commercial relationships, we must also consider who owns or controls the underlying company, technology, software, hardware, and critical supply chains.

With that, we urge you to keep these economic and national security considerations in mind as you and your staff prepare to host the Chinese delegation this week. The United States should engage China from a position of strength while maintaining the safeguards necessary to protect our automotive industry, workers, critical supply chains, and national security. Chinese automakers should not be permitted to use Canada, Mexico, USMCA, overseas manufacturing, or ownership and technology arrangements to circumvent U.S. protections.

We have an opportunity to establish clear and durable rules so that Chinese automakers cannot deeply embed themselves in our market. We look forward to working with you to ensure that we remain a global leader in automotive manufacturing and connected technology, while protecting our workers, supply chains, and national security that underpin that leadership.

Thank you.

Dingell Introduces Resolution Recognizing the Importance of Continuous Care for Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment on Medicaid

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) introduced a resolution to recognize the importance of protecting continuous Medicaid coverage for individuals who are undergoing cancer treatment. Interruption to health coverage during cancer treatment can create unnecessary risk and hardship for patients. More than 75% of individuals undergoing cancer care have delayed or skipped vital treatment due to administrative issues with third-party systems. In many states, cancer patients are required to repeatedly verify their medical circumstances, even when state Medicaid programs already hold the necessary information. Streamlining Medicaid processes and reducing these hurdles is essential to ensuring support for those receiving cancer treatment.

"No one fighting cancer should ever have to pause or skip lifesaving treatment because of bureaucratic red tape. Forcing patients to jump through redundant administrative hoops creates unnecessary hardship and puts lives at risk. This resolution recognizes the importance of continuous coverage so that patients on Medicaid can focus on what matters most: their health and recovery."

The resolution is endorsed by Less Cancer.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE.

Dingell, Fitzpatrick Express Concern About Staffing Challenges at CDC’s Injury Center

Fri, 18 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01) are voicing their concerns to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. about staff reduction and hiring constraints at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (Injury Center). These challenges have left our nation’s leading authority on preventing injuries and violence, the top cause of death for Americans ages 1–44, with critical vacancies, a major loss of institutional knowledge, and unstable leadership.

“Its staff provide technical expertise, data analysis, and oversight that ensure federal investments are used effectively and efficiently,” said the lawmakers. “If left unresolved, these challenges could contribute to a broader collapse of the nation’s injury and violence prevention capacity.”

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Secretary Kennedy:

We write to express serious concern about the current staffing challenges and hiring processes at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (Injury Center). Our goal is to ensure that Injury Center grantees have the support they need to operate effectively, and that staff have the resources required to ensure appropriate oversight of federal funds allocated by Congress to injury and violence prevention efforts.

The Injury Center is the nation’s leading authority on preventing injuries and violence, which remain the leading cause of death for Americans ages 1 to 44. The Center funds programs in every state addressing urgent public health challenges, including suicide, overdose, intimate partner violence, falls, and drowning. Its staff provide technical expertise, data analysis, and oversight that ensure federal investments are used effectively and efficiently. Thanks in part to the Injury Center’s work, we have seen an unprecedented 26% reduction in overdose deaths rates from 2023 to 2024.

Currently, CDC is facing significant workforce challenges due to recent reductions in force (RIFs) and ongoing hiring constraints across the agency. These staffing challenges have been especially acute at the Injury Center. More than 200 staff members have been eliminated through RIFs, and the Center is operating with only a fraction of the full-time equivalent (FTE) employees it started with in 2025. The agency is down to fewer than 400 FTE currently, compared to over 700 in January 2025. This has left the Injury Center with critical vacancies, a significant loss of institutional knowledge, and a lack of stable leadership.

Despite submitting a request to HHS leadership for more than 150 positions to address these vacancies, the Center has only received approval to begin hiring for 40 positions. Additionally, the positions approved for hire do not match the positions that Injury Center leadership requested. Additionally, according to Injury Center officials, no new staff have been hired because the process remains lengthy, confusing, and difficult to navigate.

Since human resource functions were centralized at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and no longer operate within CDC, hiring officials have shared that the protocols are no longer clearly defined and thus require them to expend more time and resources as they engage with multiple HHS offices in attempts to be responsive. This fragmented process places a substantial administrative burden on hiring officials and contributes to significant delays.

Among the additional burdens, hiring officials are now required to interview every applicant received. To keep the number of mandatory interviews manageable, officials set relatively low caps on the number of applications accepted. This poses two distinct challenges. First, announcements close as soon as the cap is reached, even if the cap is reached before the closing date that was initially stated. This severely limits the applicant pool and reduces the Injury Center's ability to recruit a wide range of highly qualified subject-matter experts. Second, this imposes a significant human resource burden on the agency. For example, even a small applicant pool capped to 20 applicants requires 20 separate interviews and does not permit the agency the ability to rule out unqualified candidates to streamline this process.

Further challenges exist around ensuring employees affected by RIFs have access to these new postings. Despite the requirement that these employees must receive priority notification, this has not been the case under the new hiring processes. Without timely notification, priority hiring requirements are effectively undermined, making the hiring process less efficient and increasing the risk that the Injury Center will lose access to experienced, highly qualified personnel.

Together, the consequences extend beyond individual hiring decisions. Internally, prolonged vacancies and uncertainty undermine morale, disrupt continuity, and create avoidable onboarding and training costs. Externally, hard-won progress in reducing overdose deaths and other preventable injuries is at risk, and the nation’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to growing and evolving public health challenges is fundamentally undermined. If left unresolved, these challenges could contribute to a broader collapse of the nation’s injury and violence prevention capacity.

We respectfully request that you:

Review the current hiring process to ensure the Injury Center can fill vacancies that reflect its most urgent mission and workforce needs.
Establish clear, streamlined hiring protocols with defined responsibilities, timelines, and points of contact across HHS and CDC.
Reconsider requirements that effectively mandate interviewing every applicant, allowing officials to accept broader applicant pools and conduct merit-based screening.
Create a timely notification and application process for qualified employees affected by reductions in force when relevant positions are announced.
Ensure hiring officials receive advance or immediate notice when their announcements are posted.

Prompt action is needed to ensure that the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and other CDC centers can recruit and retain the workforce necessary to fulfill their mission. We appreciate your attention to these concerns and respectfully request a review of the processes described above.

Review the current hiring process to ensure the Injury Center can fill vacancies that reflect its most urgent mission and workforce needs.

Establish clear, streamlined hiring protocols with defined responsibilities, timelines, and points of contact across HHS and CDC.

Reconsider requirements that effectively mandate interviewing every applicant, allowing officials to accept broader applicant pools and conduct merit-based screening.

Create a timely notification and application process for qualified employees affected by reductions in force when relevant positions are announced.

Ensure hiring officials receive advance or immediate notice when their announcements are posted.

Dingell, Bacon Introduce Resolution Designating September as Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month

Wed, 16 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) and Don Bacon (R-NE-02) introduced a bipartisan resolution designating September as Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month to increase awareness of gynecologic cancers and encourage earlier diagnosis and treatment.

“Gynecologic cancers affect approximately 100,000 women every year, yet too many face diagnosis when it is already far along,” said Congresswoman Dingell. “This bipartisan resolution is meant to break down stigma, make sure women know the warning signs, and encourage early detection. Early diagnosis saves lives, and we must ensure every woman has access to the comprehensive, affordable care she needs.”

“Gynecologic cancers affect thousands of women and families every year, and knowing the warning signs can make a real difference,” said Congressman Bacon. “This resolution will help raise awareness, encourage women to talk with their doctors when something does not seem right and support earlier diagnosis and treatment. I’m pleased to join Rep. Dingell in recognizing September as Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month.”

The resolution is endorsed by the Society for Gynecologic Oncology.

“Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month is an important opportunity to raise awareness of the five gynecologic cancers and ensure people know the signs and symptoms that may signal a need to speak with their healthcare provider. Early detection and timely access to high-quality, specialized care can make meaningful difference in outcomes and save lives. By increasing awareness, equipping people with the information they need, and breaking down barriers to care, we can help more people get the right diagnosis, treatment, and support, when they need it,” said Matthew A. Powell, MD, President, Society of Gynecologic Oncology.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE.

Dingell Continues Demands for Transparency from University of Michigan on Los Alamos Project

Wed, 16 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) requested a full public disclosure of the underlying agreement between the University of Michigan (U-M) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) regarding their proposed joint research computing center in Ypsilanti Township. In a letter to U-M leadership, Congresswoman Dingell channeled the frustrations she has heard from her constituents about the minimal information the community has received about the agreement between U-M and LANL.

“Despite the size, scale, and significance of this project, the public has received minimal information about the actual agreement between U-M and LANL, including the legal authority for LANL’s proposed contribution, the source and status of the funds, and the conditions governing any financial commitment. There is an important distinction between an agreement stating that LANL may contribute $300 million and an executed federal appropriation, contract, or other federal financial instrument that has obligated taxpayer dollars for this facility. The public deserves clarity about that distinction and should not have to rely on conflicting or incomplete descriptions of the project’s federal funding,” Congresswoman Dingell wrote. “Given the continued lack of transparency and the significance of the community concerns surrounding this project, I ask that U-M make the underlying agreement publicly available so that Ypsilanti Township residents and local officials can better understand the proposed data center’s structure, funding, and accountability. I also urge U-M to provide clear answers to the following questions.”

The letter follows several oversight efforts led by Congresswoman Dingell demanding answers and transparency on the project for her constituents. This month, Congresswoman Dingell expressed her opposition to the Los Alamos Project and called on congress to enact comprehensive guardrails for large scale AI and data-center development. In June 2026, the congresswoman urged leaders at U-M and Los Alamos National Laboratory to respond to Ypsilanti Township community concerns directly and decisively regarding the proposed project. In August 2026, Congresswoman Dingell released a statement criticizing the selection of Ypsilanti Township as the site for the controversial project and called on U-M leadership to fully address the long-standing concerns of residents at its September town hall.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and text is below:

Dear President Grasso:

This letter is to follow up the ongoing concerns surrounding the proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory research computing center in Ypsilanti Township and to request additional information regarding the agreement between the University of Michigan (U-M) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to develop this site.

I remain deeply frustrated by the lack of transparency, accountability, and meaningful communication surrounding this project. U-M and LANL have continued progress on this data center despite substantial and strong community opposition. Residents have spent years seeking answers about the project’s potential effects on water, electricity, noise, the environment, property values, and quality of life, as well as the roles and responsibilities of the entities involved. The community has been left to piece together information rather than receive clear answers from the institutions responsible for the project.

These concerns were particularly evident at U-M’s September 9, 2026, town hall, where residents expressed significant distrust regarding the U-M’s handling of the project. U-M itself acknowledged hearing “enormous anger” and “enormous distrust” from the community. This level of frustration underscores the need for a more transparent and accountable approach moving forward. The community must be treated as a meaningful partner in decisions that will affect its future, not as an afterthought.

U-M’s limited public information about the project’s financing and institutional arrangements is concerning. According to current project information, the proposed $1.25 billion facility would involve $300 million from LANL, $850 million from U-M, and $100 million in Strategic Site Readiness Program grant funding from the State of Michigan. The state has also indicated that the LANL facility would conduct federally funded research involving national security, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), and energy security.

Despite the size, scale, and significance of this project, the public has received minimal information about the actual agreement between U-M and LANL, including the legal authority for LANL’s proposed contribution, the source and status of the funds, and the conditions governing any financial commitment.

There is an important distinction between an agreement stating that LANL may contribute $300 million and an executed federal appropriation, contract, or other federal financial instrument that has obligated taxpayer dollars for this facility. The public deserves clarity about that distinction and should not have to rely on conflicting or incomplete descriptions of the project’s federal funding.

Given the continued lack of transparency and the significance of the community concerns surrounding this project, I ask that U-M make the underlying agreement publicly available so that Ypsilanti Township residents and local officials can better understand the proposed data center’s structure, funding, and accountability. I also urge U-M to provide clear answers to the following questions:

1. What is the date of the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory to develop this data center?

2. Which parties signed this agreement?

3. Is this agreement legally binding?

4. Have any federal dollars been appropriated for this project?

5. Have any federal dollars been obligated for this project?

6. Have any federal dollars been transferred for this project?

7. What legal authority allows Los Alamos National Laboratory to make the proposed $300 million contribution towards this project?

8. Has the Department of Energy approved or authorized the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory?

9. What conditions must be met before funding is put towards this project?

10. Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on site selection?

11. Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on environmental approvals?

12. Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on other regulatory approvals?

13. What happens to this commitment if this project is delayed, changed, or cancelled?

14. Who is responsible for cost overruns?

15. Does this agreement include any federal guarantees or commitments?

16. Is there a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or federal instrument associated with this data center agreement or proposed data center?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your timely response and to U-M’s cooperation in providing the transparency and information the community deserves.

What is the date of the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory to develop this data center?

Which parties signed this agreement?

Is this agreement legally binding?

Have any federal dollars been appropriated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been obligated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been transferred for this project?

What legal authority allows Los Alamos National Laboratory to make the proposed $300 million contribution towards this project?

Has the Department of Energy approved or authorized the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory?

What conditions must be met before funding is put towards this project?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on site selection?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on environmental approvals?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on other regulatory approvals?

What happens to this commitment if this project is delayed, changed, or cancelled?

Who is responsible for cost overruns?

Does this agreement include any federal guarantees or commitments?

Is there a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or federal instrument associated with this data center agreement or proposed data center?

What is the date of the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory to develop this data center?

Which parties signed this agreement?

Is this agreement legally binding?

Have any federal dollars been appropriated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been obligated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been transferred for this project?

What legal authority allows Los Alamos National Laboratory to make the proposed $300 million contribution towards this project?

Has the Department of Energy approved or authorized the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory?

What conditions must be met before funding is put towards this project?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on site selection?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on environmental approvals?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on other regulatory approvals?

What happens to this commitment if this project is delayed, changed, or cancelled?

Who is responsible for cost overruns?

Does this agreement include any federal guarantees or commitments?

Is there a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or federal instrument associated with this data center agreement or proposed data center?

What is the date of the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory to develop this data center?

Which parties signed this agreement?

Is this agreement legally binding?

Have any federal dollars been appropriated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been obligated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been transferred for this project?

What legal authority allows Los Alamos National Laboratory to make the proposed $300 million contribution towards this project?

Has the Department of Energy approved or authorized the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory?

What conditions must be met before funding is put towards this project?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on site selection?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on environmental approvals?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on other regulatory approvals?

What happens to this commitment if this project is delayed, changed, or cancelled?

Who is responsible for cost overruns?

Does this agreement include any federal guarantees or commitments?

Is there a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or federal instrument associated with this data center agreement or proposed data center?

What is the date of the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory to develop this data center?

Which parties signed this agreement?

Is this agreement legally binding?

Have any federal dollars been appropriated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been obligated for this project?

Have any federal dollars been transferred for this project?

What legal authority allows Los Alamos National Laboratory to make the proposed $300 million contribution towards this project?

Has the Department of Energy approved or authorized the agreement between the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory?

What conditions must be met before funding is put towards this project?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on site selection?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on environmental approvals?

Was Los Alamos National Laboratory’s commitment to contribute $300 million contingent on other regulatory approvals?

What happens to this commitment if this project is delayed, changed, or cancelled?

Who is responsible for cost overruns?

Does this agreement include any federal guarantees or commitments?

Is there a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or federal instrument associated with this data center agreement or proposed data center?

Dingell Requests Review of Environmental Status of Proposed Site of Los Alamos Project

Wed, 16 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) is requesting the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a formal review of the environmental status of the Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township, which has been selected for the proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) research computing center.

“The selection of this site, despite ongoing environmental concerns, warrants additional scrutiny. The proposed facility is a major development that should not move forward without a clear understanding of the site’s environmental history, remaining contamination, applicable restrictions, and the protections necessary to safeguard public health and the surrounding community,” Congresswoman Dingell wrote.

The letter follows several oversight efforts led by Congresswoman Dingell demanding answers and transparency on the project for her constituents. This month, Congresswoman Dingell expressed her opposition to the Los Alamos Project and called on congress to enact comprehensive guardrails for large scale AI and data-center development. In June 2026, the congresswoman urged leaders at U-M and Los Alamos National Laboratory to respond to Ypsilanti Township community concerns directly and decisively regarding the proposed project. In August 2026, Congresswoman Dingell released a statement criticizing the selection of Ypsilanti Township as the site for the controversial project and called on U-M leadership to fully address the long-standing concerns of residents at its September town hall.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Administrator Zeldin and Director Roos:

This letter is to request a formal review of the environmental status of the Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township, which has been selected for the proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) research computing center.

The selection of this site, despite ongoing environmental concerns, warrants additional scrutiny. The proposed facility is a major development that should not move forward without a clear understanding of the site’s environmental history, remaining contamination, applicable restrictions, and the protections necessary to safeguard public health and the surrounding community.

As you know, federal cleanup of the site was conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a CERCLA record for the Textile Road Site [EPA ID MID980825558], which is located near the former General Motors (GM) Willow Run Plant. EPA records indicate that removal and cleanup work has been completed and that the site is now in an oversight and management phase.

The completion of cleanup activities does not resolve all questions about a site’s environmental status or the protections that may remain necessary. The public deserves a clear understanding of what contamination remains, what monitoring is required, and whether future construction activities could disturb contaminated soil or groundwater.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) also has an important role in maintaining information about contaminated properties and environmental restrictions in Michigan. EGLE’s RIDE Mapper identifies federally regulated Superfund sites and Michigan-regulated contaminated properties, including sites subject to environmental restrictions. EGLE also has responsibilities under Michigan’s environmental remediation laws, including Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

The need for clarity is particularly important as data center development accelerates nationwide. Recent reporting has described federal efforts to streamline environmental permitting for data centers, including potential changes affecting pollution permitting and public participation. Accelerating development must not come at the expense of careful environmental review, meaningful public participation, or the enforcement of protections designed to prevent exposure to contamination. For a project proposed on a site with a documented environmental history, those safeguards are vital.

Given the joint responsibilities of EPA and EGLE in evaluating environmental risks and overseeing remediation, I request that both agencies formally review the current environmental status of the Textile Road Site and identify what environmental protections, monitoring requirements, and restrictions remain in effect, while responding to the following questions:

What contamination remains at or near this proposed site?

What soil and groundwater monitoring requirements currently apply to this site, including any requirements established through CERCLA, state remediation programs, or other applicable authorities?

Who is responsible for conducting the required monitoring, and who is responsible for overseeing compliance?

How frequently are soil and groundwater samples collected, and what contaminants are included in the required testing?

Where are this site’s monitoring wells located, and can EPA and EGLE provide a map identifying their locations relative to this site?

What are the most recent soil and groundwater monitoring results, and do those results identify any ongoing contamination, environmental risks, or additional monitoring needs?

Are there any existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions applicable to this property?

Could anticipated construction activities, including excavation, grading, foundation construction, utility installation, or dewatering, disturb contaminated soil or groundwater, interfere with existing environmental protections, or otherwise create additional environmental risks?

What environmental reviews, permits, approvals, or other requirements must be completed before construction may begin, including any additional investigation or remediation that may be necessary given the site’s environmental history?

What agency has the legal authority to require construction to stop, impose additional protective measures, or otherwise intervene if contamination is discovered, disturbed, or presents an environmental risk during construction?

Who would be responsible for paying for any additional environmental testing, monitoring, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by this project?

EPA and EGLE should coordinate, as appropriate, to clearly establish which entity is responsible for each aspect of environmental monitoring, remediation, and construction oversight. Additionally, copies of any relevant environmental assessments, monitoring reports, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other documents necessary to understand the site’s current environmental status should be made public and easily accessible.

The community deserves clear answers about the conditions of a site that may host a massive research computing facility. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your timely response.

What contamination remains at or near this proposed site?

What soil and groundwater monitoring requirements currently apply to this site, including any requirements established through CERCLA, state remediation programs, or other applicable authorities?

Who is responsible for conducting the required monitoring, and who is responsible for overseeing compliance?

How frequently are soil and groundwater samples collected, and what contaminants are included in the required testing?

Where are this site’s monitoring wells located, and can EPA and EGLE provide a map identifying their locations relative to this site?

What are the most recent soil and groundwater monitoring results, and do those results identify any ongoing contamination, environmental risks, or additional monitoring needs?

Are there any existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions applicable to this property?

Who would be responsible for paying for any additional environmental testing, monitoring, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by this project?

Dingell Passes Bill through House to Support Conservation of Birds, Bird Habitats

Tue, 15 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) passed the bipartisan Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act to establish a federal grant program to support conservation of birds and habitats in urban areas. The bill passed the House of Representatives and now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

“Birds play an important role in our ecosystems and our everyday lives, but unfortunately, we have lost nearly 3 billion birds in the last 50 years, and we need to take serious action to address this crisis,” Congresswoman Dingell said. “The Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act will provide federal funding to restore bird habitats and educate communities about the small steps we can all take to protect bird populations for generations to come.”

In North America, one in four breeding birds has been lost since 1970. The widespread loss and degradation of habitat is the biggest driver of bird population decline. Restoring bird habitat in urban areas can make a significant difference in conserving bird populations.

The Local Communities & Bird Habitat Stewardship Act would make $200,000 available annually through a competitive grant program to eligible entities, including Tribal, State, or municipal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, community groups, and academic institutions, to promote urban bird conservation.

Specifically, the grant program aims to:

protect, restore, or enhance urban habitats for birds, including through the control of invasive species and the restoration of native plant species;
reduce urban hazards to birds; and
educate and engage communities in scientific activities involving the monitoring of birds and the habitats of such birds in urban areas.

educate and engage communities in scientific activities involving the monitoring of birds and the habitats of such birds in urban areas.

protect, restore, or enhance urban habitats for birds, including through the control of invasive species and the restoration of native plant species;

reduce urban hazards to birds; and

educate and engage communities in scientific activities involving the monitoring of birds and the habitats of such birds in urban areas.

protect, restore, or enhance urban habitats for birds, including through the control of invasive species and the restoration of native plant species;

reduce urban hazards to birds; and

educate and engage communities in scientific activities involving the monitoring of birds and the habitats of such birds in urban areas.

protect, restore, or enhance urban habitats for birds, including through the control of invasive species and the restoration of native plant species;

reduce urban hazards to birds; and

educate and engage communities in scientific activities involving the monitoring of birds and the habitats of such birds in urban areas.

Dingell Opposes Los Alamos Project, Calls on Congress to Enact Guardrails Against A.I.

Tue, 15 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) expressed opposition to the proposed University of Michigan (U-M) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) research computing center at the Textile Road site in Ypsilanti Township. In a letter sent to Ypsilanti Township and U-M leadership, Congresswoman Dingell also called on Congress to enact comprehensive guardrails for large-scale AI and data-center development.

“The lesson from the U-M-LANL proposal is clear: the United States and the State of Michigan need the rules now, not later. The public deserves transparency before commitments are made, enforceable protections before construction begins, and a meaningful voice when a project has the potential to fundamentally change a community,” said Congresswoman Dingell. “For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township. My opposition is not opposition to the University of Michigan, it is not opposition to research, and it is not opposition to artificial intelligence. Rather, my opposition is a demand that a project of this size and significance be developed responsibly, transparently, and with the people who will live with its consequences having a meaningful voice. The environmental history of the site makes the need for independent review even more important. The questions about water, electricity, schools, noise, and local authority make meaningful community involvement essential. We should not build first and regulate later. Innovation matters, but protecting our lives, our freedoms, our humanity, and our future must come first.”

The latest letter follows several oversight efforts led by Congresswoman Dingell demanding answers and transparency on the project for her constituents. In June 2026, the congresswoman urged leaders at U-M and Los Alamos National Laboratory to respond to Ypsilanti Township community concerns directly and decisively regarding the proposed project. In August 2026, Congresswoman Dingell released a statement criticizing the selection of Ypsilanti Township as the site for the controversial project and called on U-M leadership to fully address the long-standing concerns of residents at its September town hall.

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:

Dear Supervisor Stumbo and members of the Ypsilanti Township community:

The proposed University of Michigan-Los Alamos research computing center in Ypsilanti Township has become a deeply troubling example of what happens when a major project moves faster than meaningful community engagement, transparency, and public accountability. The University of Michigan (U-M) has repeatedly failed to adequately communicate with the community, particularly those who live closest to the proposed site. Residents have spent years asking basic questions about the project, its environmental impacts, its water and electricity demands, its noise, its long-term operation, and who ultimately has the authority to make decisions. Instead of receiving clear answers early in the process, the community has too often been left to piece together information without receiving the answers or facts it deserves.

That frustration was on full display at the recent U-M town hall on September 9, 2026, where residents expressed anger and distrust toward university officials. U-M itself acknowledged hearing “enormous anger” and “enormous distrust” from the community. These concerns are not imaginary or isolated. Local officials and residents have repeatedly questioned the project’s potential effects on water, electricity, property values, quality of life, noise, and the environment. The community should and deserves to be treated as a partner, not as an afterthought, and U-M’s handling of the site-selection process has only deepened that distrust.

Making matters worse, the roles and responsibilities of the entities involved in this project remain unclear and insufficiently transparent. U-M’s current information states that the $1.25 billion project involves $300 million from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), $850 million from U-M, and $100 million from the State of Michigan through a Strategic Site Readiness Program grant. The state has announced that the LANL facility would conduct federally funded research involving national security, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), and energy security.

Governmental Authority and Public Accountability

We need to be clear about the roles of federal, state, and local governments in this project. The project involves different layers of authority, including U-M as a public university and the activities authorized by its Board of Regents; the State of Michigan, because the project is supported by $100 million in state funding approved by the Michigan Legislature and is subject to applicable state laws and regulations; a reported agreement between U-M and LANL because of the stated federal research mission; and local government, with respect to the authority state law leaves to the township.

U-M has asserted that, as a state constitutional institution, it is exempt from ordinary local zoning and taxes. That legal question is central to this dispute. If a public university’s constitutional authority permits it to override local land-use decisions, the Michigan Legislature needs to determine whether that framework remains appropriate for projects of this size and potential impact. This should not be decided project by project. Communities deserve clarity about their authority when a state institution proposes an industrial-scale facility in or near their neighborhoods.

No community should have to discover after decisions have been made who has authority over water, electricity, environmental protections, noise, traffic, emergency planning, and other impacts for a project of this size. Those responsibilities must be established publicly and in writing before a project of this magnitude moves forward.

I understand that legislation has been introduced by Michigan State Representatives, including Representatives Jason Morgan, Morgan Foreman, Carrie Rheingans, Jimmie Wilson, and Jennifer Conlin of the Washtenaw legislative delegation, to address some of these issues, and I urge state legislators to support it. Additional work and legislation across all levels of government are necessary to establish clear rules and accountability in this area.

Federal Funding and the University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory Agreement

We need clarity about the federal agreement between U-M, LANL, and federal partners. Specifically, does a contractual financial commitment exist between Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the University of Michigan, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding this proposed facility? If so, what are the roles, responsibilities, financial interests, and contractual obligations of each party?

At the time the program was announced, the University stated in its “Make It In Michigan FAQ National AI Research Center” memorandum:

Has the federal funding already been approved/Is there a chance they won’t have it? Federal funding to support this project has not yet been appropriated. However, Los Alamos National Lab has consistently received its funding because its purpose is so vital to national security. In fact, in January 2023, it was reported that LANL received an unprecedented $4.6 billion budget (Source: Albuquerque Journal).

There is an important distinction between a statement that LANL may contribute $300 million under an agreement and an executed federal appropriation or federal contract that has obligated federal taxpayer dollars for this facility. My understanding from multiple official inquiries that I submitted is that there is no federal money appropriated and there is not a federal financial commitment.

There is an important distinction between a statement that LANL may contribute $300 million under an agreement and an executed federal appropriation or federal contract that has obligated federal taxpayer dollars for this facility. My understanding from multiple official inquiries that I submitted is that there is no federal money appropriated and there is not a federal financial commitment.

The public should not have to rely on conflicting descriptions. That is why I urge U-M and LANL to publicly produce the agreement, identify the legal authority and source of the dollars, identify whether the dollars have actually been appropriated or obligated, and identify every condition that must be satisfied before any federal money can be spent. This is basic transparency for a project involving more than $1 billion dollars and a federal national laboratory.

I will be seeking answers from the University of Michigan in a separate letter regarding the exact agreement between LANL and U-M. The public should be able to understand:

● The date of the agreement;

● The parties who signed it;

● Whether it is legally binding;

● Whether any federal dollars have actually been appropriated, obligated, or transferred;

● What legal authority allows LANL to make the proposed $300 million contribution;

● Whether DOE has approved or authorized the agreement;

● What conditions must be met before any money is provided;

● Whether the $300 million is contingent on site selection or environmental or other regulatory approvals;

● What happens to the commitment if the project is delayed, changed, or cancelled;

● Who is responsible for cost overruns;

● Whether there are any federal guarantees or commitments; and

● Whether there is a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other federal instrument associated with the proposed facility.

Concerns at the Textile Road Site

The selection of the Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township, despite ongoing environmental concerns, requires additional scrutiny. There are specific environmental concerns related to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) designation of the site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, including its close proximity to the former General Motors (GM) Willow Run Plant.

The federal cleanup of the site was conducted under CERCLA and its implementing regulations under the National Contingency Plan. Today, EPA maintains a CERCLA record [EPA ID MID980825558] for the Textile Road Site. EPA has stated that removal and cleanup work was completed and that the site is now in an oversight and management phase. EPA’s administrative record identifies the Textile Road Site as a Superfund site and documents EPA’s response actions under CERCLA. That history requires scrutiny, transparency, and answers for the community.

Likewise, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) maintains the state’s contaminated-site databases and RIDE Mapper, which includes federal Superfund sites and Michigan-regulated contaminated properties. EGLE also has responsibilities under Michigan’s environmental laws governing environmental remediation. EPA and EGLE should publicly establish the current environmental status of the site and clearly identify which agency has responsibility for each aspect of monitoring, remediation, and construction oversight.

I will be requesting in a separate letter that EPA and EGLE formally review the current status of the Textile Road Site and determine what environmental protections, monitoring, and restrictions remain in effect. We need answers to the following questions:

● What contamination remains at or near the proposed development site?

● What soil and groundwater monitoring is currently required?

● Who is responsible for conducting that monitoring?

● How frequently are samples taken?

● What contaminants are being tested for?

● Where are the monitoring wells located?

● What are the most recent test results?

● Are there existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions on the property?

● Could excavation, grading, foundations, utility installation, dewatering, or other construction activities disturb contaminated soil or groundwater?

● What agency has the authority to stop construction if contamination is discovered or disturbed?

● What additional environmental review is required before construction?

● Who will pay for any additional testing, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by the project?

Concerns about nearby schools are also important, and U-M must address potential impacts on nearby students, teachers, and school operations. That should include construction traffic, noise, air quality, emergency planning, environmental risks, and any other foreseeable impacts. Parents should not have to wait until construction begins to find out what a high-performance computing facility could mean for schools in the surrounding area.

Federal and State Guardrails for AI and Data Centers

The concerns raised by this project also point to a much larger national and state issue. The United States and Michigan need comprehensive guardrails for large-scale AI and data-center development. AI development can and should continue, but it must be responsible development that protects communities, clean water, environmental protections, and residential ratepayers.

The recent warnings by AI executives themselves, their employees, and other experts are chilling and require immediate policy action. That’s why I believe at the federal level, Congress must act now to establish appropriate guardrails. At a minimum, these standards should ensure:

● Large data centers, not residential ratepayers, pay the costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure required to serve them;

● Developers disclose projected electricity and water demand and the sources of those resources;

● Major facilities undergo comprehensive environmental review addressing water, air quality, stormwater, wetlands, wildlife, emissions, backup power, noise, traffic, and cumulative impacts;

● Water use is independently monitored, publicly reported, and subject to enforceable protections for drinking water, groundwater, rivers, and wetlands;

● Noise limits are independently measured and enforceable;

● Nearby schools and residential neighborhoods are protected;

● Emergency-response planning is developed with local officials;

● Communities have meaningful participation and enforceable community-benefit agreements; and

● There is clear public accountability for which governmental entity has authority to enforce each requirement.

If Congress does not act swiftly to enact appropriate measures, we should pause further development until clear guardrails are put in place. Importantly, a moratorium cannot just be words, it requires action. That time must be time spent working toward a comprehensive solution. No community should have to accept a massive facility first and figure out the rules afterward.

Congress must also examine the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure and determine how existing laws should be strengthened to protect communities. We need to know who is paying for these facilities, who ultimately pays for the electricity and infrastructure they require, how much water they consume, how that water is monitored, what environmental safeguards are in place, and which federal agencies have responsibility for oversight. We cannot simply move full speed ahead without clear rules and regulations and meaningful oversight and accountability.

The State of Michigan has an equally important responsibility. Michigan should slow down and establish a data center “bill of rights” with clear, legally enforceable standards for energy, water, environmental protection, ratepayer protection, local participation, and community benefits before approving additional large-scale AI and data-center projects. These standards should apply to every major facility, regardless of who owns it or where it is located. Michigan cannot write the rules after communities have already absorbed the impacts.

Additionally, every major facility must be subject to transparent analysis of projected electricity and water demand, legally enforceable requirements ensuring developers bear the costs they create, and comprehensive environmental review. Water use should be independently monitored and publicly reported, facilities should prioritize closed-loop water systems, and projects should establish continuous safeguards for drinking-water supplies, groundwater, rivers, and wetlands. There should be enforceable requirements for what happens if actual water use exceeds projections or monitoring identifies an adverse impact. Noise standards should also be independently measured and enforceable, with baseline measurements, operating limits, monitoring requirements, and a clear process for resolving violations.

Communities should have enforceable community-benefit agreements established early in the development process, with measurable commitments for local hiring, union construction, workforce development, infrastructure investments, environmental protections, emergency planning, and public reporting. Those commitments must be contractual, measurable, and enforceable, with strong consequences when they are not met. Non-disclosure agreements cannot be allowed. They stifle discussion or limit the community’s ability to access vital information regarding the project.

A temporary pause on new large-scale AI and data-center development should also be considered while these standards are established, so that Michigan does not continue approving projects before the necessary rules and protections are in place.

This week, Congress will vote to pass the Ratepayer Protection Act, which would require states to consider policies to ensure large-load customers bear the costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades necessary to serve them. This is a step toward ensuring local communities are not subsidizing the energy demands of large data-center projects through residential utility bills. I will be supporting this legislation, but it is far from enough and much more needs to be done at all levels of government.

A National Responsibility

This is also far bigger than one project. AI and high-performance computing are transforming our economy, but technological advancement cannot mean abandoning basic principles of public accountability. We can support innovation while insisting on responsible development. We can support research while protecting residents. And we can welcome investment while making sure residential ratepayers, water users, and local communities are not the ones left carrying the costs.

The fact that a project may have important research goals does not eliminate the obligation to answer legitimate and critical questions. AI is one of the most consequential technologies we have ever created, with extraordinary potential to improve lives. But we cannot ignore the risks, that if left unchecked, could threaten humanity itself.

We need clear guidelines on national security, healthcare, education, employment, law enforcement, elections, consumer protection, intellectual property, cybersecurity, environmental impacts, and the use of AI by government agencies. We cannot wait until something goes terribly wrong to establish guardrails. We need strong standards for human oversight of AI, safety, transparency, accountability, biocybersecurity, energy use, and the data centers that power it.

Where We Go From Here

The lesson from the U-M-LANL proposal is clear: the United States and the State of Michigan need the rules now, not later. The public deserves transparency before commitments are made, enforceable protections before construction begins, and a meaningful voice when a project has the potential to fundamentally change a community.

For all of these reasons, I strongly oppose the proposed Textile Road Site in Ypsilanti Township. My opposition is not opposition to the University of Michigan, it is not opposition to research, and it is not opposition to artificial intelligence. Rather, my opposition is a demand that a project of this size and significance be developed responsibly, transparently, and with the people who will live with its consequences having a meaningful voice. The environmental history of the site makes the need for independent review even more important. The questions about water, electricity, schools, noise, and local authority make meaningful community involvement essential.

We should not build first and regulate later. Innovation matters, but protecting our lives, our freedoms, our humanity, and our future must come first.

Dingell, DeSaulnier Introduce Bill to Expand Access to Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), co-chair of the Bipartisan Disabilities Caucus, and Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-10) introduced the Augmentative and Alternative Communication Centers to Establish National Training (AACCENT) Act, to expand access to augmentative and alternative communication for Americans across the country. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) includes any tool, technology, or service that supports people who use little or no verbal speech to communicate. AAC can enhance communication, foster language and literacy development and help millions of people access communication and participate in all aspects of life.

“Augmentative and alternative communication services, devices, and technology are essential for millions of Americans to work, learn, and stay connected with their communities and the world around them,” said Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. “AAC tools can significantly improve individuals’ quality of life and open opportunities that otherwise would not be available to them. This bill is a significant step to increase education and expand access to these vital resources.”

“Making assistive and augmentative technology more available will help the almost 5 million Americans with complex communication needs better connect with their communities, succeed in the classroom, participate in the workforce, and overall thrive,” said Congressman DeSaulnier. “Partnering with and advocating for the disability community has been one of the greatest sources of pride and joy throughout my career and I am proud to continue that work alongside Congresswoman Dingell by introducing this important legislation that will help millions of Americans live with greater independence and dignity.”

The AACCENT Act will establish three national resource centers coordinated to improve access to AAC information, tools and support for AAC users and their families. They also aim to increase the capacity and leadership skills of people who use AAC, their families and professionals.

More than 4 million people in the United States cannot reliably meet their daily communication needs using verbal speech. People who use and can benefit from AAC include those with intellectual or developmental disabilities (e.g., cerebral palsy, Down syndrome), acquired or degenerative conditions (e.g., Parkinson’s disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s) and those with temporary conditions that limit vocal speech (e.g., those who are intubated post-surgery). Advances in AAC have enhanced communication and improved outcomes for millions of Americans, yet not everyone has access to AAC. Lack of knowledge and resources creates barriers for people who can benefit from AAC. The AACCENT Act will help reduce these barriers by creating resource centers focused on AAC.

The legislation is endorsed by the American Music Therapy Association, Disability Belongs, Autism Society of America, The Arc of the U.S., and ANCOR.

"Communication is fundamental to self-determination, belonging, and full participation in community life. The AACCENT Act recognizes that people with expressive communication disabilities deserve meaningful access to the tools, knowledge, and support needed to communicate authentically. Disability Belongs is proud to support this legislation and its commitment to disability-led solutions that expand opportunity across education, employment, health care, and community living,” said Ariel Simms, President and Chief Executive Officer of Disability Belongs.

"Communication is a fundamental part of being able to participate fully in our communities, yet too many people with Autism and other developmental disabilities face barriers to accessing the tools and support they need to be heard. The AACCENT Act recognizes that access to augmentative and alternative communication is not a luxury, it is essential to learning, working, building relationships, and participating fully in everyday life. We thank Representative Dingell for championing this important legislation and investing in the training, technical assistance, and resources needed to ensure every person has the opportunity to communicate and participate fully in society,” said Joseph P. Joyce, President and CEO, Autism Society of America.

Bill text can be found HERE.

Dingell, Colleagues Seek Answers on USDA Cancellation of Cyclospora Research

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06) and nine of her House Democratic colleagues are seeking answers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) following the unauthorized reorganization of its staff and research projects. This reorganization has put two research projects on cyclospora—the bacterium that caused the largest foodborne illness outbreak in United States history, with most of the cases occurring in Michigan–on hold. In a letter to the USDA Secretary, the lawmakers are calling on the USDA to reinvest in this research.

“Research projects like those focused on cyclospora play an important role in helping researchers, investigators, and public health officials understand the nature of an outbreak and build a strategy to prevent the next potential outbreak. Researchers who worked on the cancelled cyclospora projects have reported that they are unable to continue any research beyond preserving samples they received from previous outbreaks, and that they are having to turn down requests for assistance from other federal agencies investigating the outbreak,” said the lawmakers.

In addition to Congresswoman Dingell, the letter was signed by U.S. Representatives Marc Veasey (D-TX-33), Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Haley Stevens (D-MI-11), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), Jasmine Crockett (D-TX-30), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL-08), Don Beyer (D-VA-08), Nanette Barragán (D-CA-44), and Yvette Clark (D-NY-09).

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and text is below:

This letter is regarding reports that two of three cyclospora-related research projects conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) have been shelved on the heels of an unprecedented outbreak of cyclosporiasis — the gastrointestinal illness associated with the cyclospora parasite — across 48 states and Washington D.C. The third research project, though not halted, is moving from the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Maryland to Iowa as part of USDA’s reorganization plan. Given that scientists working on this project are not expected to relocate, it is likely this research will not be conducted. While Americans are increasingly worried about the safety of our food supply and the ability of federal agencies to respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness like cyclosporiasis, it is especially concerning that USDA would rollback critical food safety research.

This summer’s outbreak of cyclosporiasis is the largest recorded outbreak of foodborne illness in United States history, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reporting over 18,000 confirmed cases, over 14,000 of which were in Michigan. There are nearly 12,000 additional non-laboratory confirmed cases, and potentially thousands more from people who did not seek medical care or testing. Research projects like those focused on cyclospora play an important role in helping researchers, investigators, and public health officials understand the nature of an outbreak and build a strategy to prevent the next potential outbreak. Researchers who worked on the cancelled cyclospora projects have reported that they are unable to continue any research beyond preserving samples they received from previous outbreaks, and that they are having to turn down requests for assistance from other federal agencies investigating the outbreak. This will likely have a similar effect on private institutions who wish to carry out cyclospora research, since they also rely on samples from ARS. Despite these reported disruptions, USDA has claimed that these labs will be uninterrupted, and that the ARS is “working with research leaders to ensure an orderly transition of programs.”

USDA has directed the blame to Congress, who voted to defund the ARS projects as part of a 2026 Continuing Resolution, enacted on November 12, 2025 However, the Department began planning for a significant workforce reduction and agency restructuring as early as April 2025, according to a document submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. Notably, the November 2025 Continuing Resolution included language prohibiting the use of USDA funds for the Department’s reorganization plan without congressional approval, which they appear to be circumventing by proceeding with their plan to reduce the workforce and relocate staff and subcomponent agencies. This includes a 43 percent staffing cut for the ARS, which oversees scientific research like the three cyclospora projects at issue.

The Trump Administration has claimed that research facilities like BARC are too expensive, without regard for the potential cost of stopping this research altogether. According to CDC, there have been 922 cyclosporiasis hospitalizations. While we do not yet know the total cost to the health system of this outbreak, USDA’s Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illness data estimate that, in 2023, the cost of foodborne illness in the United States was $74.7 billion. These costs — compounded by drastic cuts to Medicaid, expired ACA tax credits, and dismantled public health programs — make it clear that we must invest in research to prevent foodborne illness outbreaks.

As we continue to grapple with additional cases of foodborne illnesses in our food supply, the American people should be able to have confidence that the Trump Administration is working to investigate those cases and prevent future outbreaks. Therefore, we respectfully request that you respond to the questions below within two weeks of receipt of this letter.

For what reason did the Department choose not to seek congressional authorization for their reorganization plan? Do you plan to seek such authorization at any point or do you plan to proceed in direct violation of the law?
How many staff at ARS have been let go, left for another position or project, or retired?

a. What specific research was impacted by these departures?
How does USDA plan to ensure an “orderly transition of programs” throughout their reorganization process, despite their own acknowledgement that their relocation plans will result in significant staff attrition?
In terms of staff who have been ordered to relocate, how many are expected to vacate their positions instead of relocating?
What plans are in place to fill any vacancies that occur as a result of these staff departures?
What is the USDA’s plan for the relocation of research materials that are a part of the ongoing cyclospora research project at BARC? Specifically:

a. How does USDA plan to transport samples from BARC to the new location in Iowa?

b. How will USDA account for the potential impact of environmental factors on the integrity of the research conducted in the new lab location?

c. When can ARS researchers who are relocating to the new location expect their research equipment to reach them?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and for providing a detailed response to these questions. At a time when Americans are counting on the federal government to protect the safety of their food supply, it is critical that USDA maintain the scientific capacity necessary to investigate outbreaks, support public health officials, and prevent future illnesses.

For what reason did the Department choose not to seek congressional authorization for their reorganization plan? Do you plan to seek such authorization at any point or do you plan to proceed in direct violation of the law?

How many staff at ARS have been let go, left for another position or project, or retired?

What specific research was impacted by these departures?

How does USDA plan to ensure an “orderly transition of programs” throughout their reorganization process, despite their own acknowledgement that their relocation plans will result in significant staff attrition?

In terms of staff who have been ordered to relocate, how many are expected to vacate their positions instead of relocating?

What plans are in place to fill any vacancies that occur as a result of these staff departures?

What is the USDA’s plan for the relocation of research materials that are a part of the ongoing cyclospora research project at BARC? Specifically:

How does USDA plan to transport samples from BARC to the new location in Iowa?
How will USDA account for the potential impact of environmental factors on the integrity of the research conducted in the new lab location?
When can ARS researchers who are relocating to the new location expect their research equipment to reach them?

How many staff at ARS have been let go, left for another position or project, or retired?

What specific research was impacted by these departures?

In terms of staff who have been ordered to relocate, how many are expected to vacate their positions instead of relocating?

What plans are in place to fill any vacancies that occur as a result of these staff departures?

What is the USDA’s plan for the relocation of research materials that are a part of the ongoing cyclospora research project at BARC? Specifically:

How does USDA plan to transport samples from BARC to the new location in Iowa?
How will USDA account for the potential impact of environmental factors on the integrity of the research conducted in the new lab location?
When can ARS researchers who are relocating to the new location expect their research equipment to reach them?

How many staff at ARS have been let go, left for another position or project, or retired?

What specific research was impacted by these departures?

In terms of staff who have been ordered to relocate, how many are expected to vacate their positions instead of relocating?

What plans are in place to fill any vacancies that occur as a result of these staff departures?

What is the USDA’s plan for the relocation of research materials that are a part of the ongoing cyclospora research project at BARC? Specifically:

How does USDA plan to transport samples from BARC to the new location in Iowa?
How will USDA account for the potential impact of environmental factors on the integrity of the research conducted in the new lab location?
When can ARS researchers who are relocating to the new location expect their research equipment to reach them?

How many staff at ARS have been let go, left for another position or project, or retired?

What specific research was impacted by these departures?

In terms of staff who have been ordered to relocate, how many are expected to vacate their positions instead of relocating?

What plans are in place to fill any vacancies that occur as a result of these staff departures?

What is the USDA’s plan for the relocation of research materials that are a part of the ongoing cyclospora research project at BARC? Specifically:

How does USDA plan to transport samples from BARC to the new location in Iowa?
How will USDA account for the potential impact of environmental factors on the integrity of the research conducted in the new lab location?
When can ARS researchers who are relocating to the new location expect their research equipment to reach them?

For what reason did the Department choose not to seek congressional authorization for their reorganization plan? Do you plan to seek such authorization at any point or do you plan to proceed in direct violation of the law?

For what reason did the Department choose not to seek congressional authorization for their reorganization plan? Do you plan to seek such authorization at any point or do you plan to proceed in direct violation of the law?

Dingell, Walberg to Host Washtenaw County Veterans Fair

Mon, 13 May 2019 14:00:00 GMT

U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-12) and U.S. Congressman Tim Walberg (MI-07) will co-host a Veterans Resource Fair in Washtenaw County on Monday, May 13 to provide veterans and their family members with access to resources earned through their service to our country. More than 20 veteran employment specialists, Veterans Affairs counselors, and veterans service organizations will participate. Constituents can call Congresswoman Dingell’s office at 313-278-2936 or Congressman Walberg’s office at 517-780-9075 for more information.

Veterans are encouraged to bring a copy of their DD214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

At the fair, veterans will be able to register for eBenefits, file or check the status of a VA claim, check their healthcare benefits or enrollment, find veteran peer support, find employment services, and connect with financial assistance if needed.

WHAT: Dingell, Walberg to hold Washtenaw County Veterans Resource Fair

WHEN: Monday, May 13 from 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

WHERE: VFW Post 423, 3230 S. Wagner Rd. in Ann Arbor

PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS:

American Legion

Attorney General - Consumer Protection

Buddy-to-Buddy

Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County

Concordia University

Department of Labor Disabled Veterans Outreach

Detroit VARO (Veterans Benefits Administration)

Eisenhower Center

Fischer House Michigan

Great Lakes National Cemetery

Habitat for Humanity Huron Valley

Michigan Works! Washtenaw

National Guard Family Assistance Center

State Senator Jeff Irwin

State Representative Donna Lasinski

State Representative Rebekah Warren

Tags and Tails

Talent Investment Agency, Veterans’ Employment Services

VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System

VA Loan Guaranty Division

VCAT Region 9 / Community Action Agency

Vietnam Veterans of America

Volunteers of America Michigan

Washtenaw County Veterans Affairs