{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=7329", "Dingell Opposes Los Alamos Project, Calls on Congress to Enact Guardrails Against A.I.", "2026-09-15", "2026", "2026-09", "Democrat", "House", "MI", "Debbie Dingell", "D000624", "debbiedingell.house.gov", "debbiedingell", "https://debbiedingell.house.gov/media-center/press-releases", "scraper", "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.\n\n\u201cThe 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,\u201d said Congresswoman Dingell.\u201cFor 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.\u201d\n\nThe 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.\n\nA copy of the letter can be found HERE and below:\n\nDear Supervisor Stumbo and members of the Ypsilanti Township community:\n\nThe 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.\n\nThat 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 \u201cenormous anger\u201d and \u201cenormous distrust\u201d from the community. These concerns are not imaginary or isolated. Local officials and residents have repeatedly questioned the project\u2019s 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\u2019s handling of the site-selection process has only deepened that distrust.\n\nMaking matters worse, the roles and responsibilities of the entities involved in this project remain unclear and insufficiently transparent. U-M\u2019s 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.\n\nGovernmental Authority and Public Accountability\n\nWe 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.\n\nU-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\u2019s 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.\n\nNo 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.\n\nI 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.\n\nFederal Funding and the University of Michigan-Los Alamos National Laboratory Agreement\n\nWe 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?\n\nAt the time the program was announced, the University stated in its \u201cMake It In Michigan FAQ National AI Research Center\u201d memorandum:\n\nHas the federal funding already been approved/Is there a chance they won\u2019t 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).\n\nThere 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.\n\nThere 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.\n\nThe 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.\n\nI 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:\n\n\u25cf The date of the agreement;\n\n\u25cf The parties who signed it;\n\n\u25cf Whether it is legally binding;\n\n\u25cf Whether any federal dollars have actually been appropriated, obligated, or transferred;\n\n\u25cf What legal authority allows LANL to make the proposed $300 million contribution;\n\n\u25cf Whether DOE has approved or authorized the agreement;\n\n\u25cf What conditions must be met before any money is provided;\n\n\u25cf Whether the $300 million is contingent on site selection or environmental or other regulatory approvals;\n\n\u25cf What happens to the commitment if the project is delayed, changed, or cancelled;\n\n\u25cf Who is responsible for cost overruns;\n\n\u25cf Whether there are any federal guarantees or commitments; and\n\n\u25cf Whether there is a federal contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other federal instrument associated with the proposed facility.\n\nConcerns at the Textile Road Site\n\nThe 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\u2019s (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.\n\nThe 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\u2019s administrative record identifies the Textile Road Site as a Superfund site and documents EPA\u2019s response actions under CERCLA. That history requires scrutiny, transparency, and answers for the community.\n\nLikewise, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) maintains the state\u2019s contaminated-site databases and RIDE Mapper, which includes federal Superfund sites and Michigan-regulated contaminated properties. EGLE also has responsibilities under Michigan\u2019s 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.\n\nI 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:\n\n\u25cf What contamination remains at or near the proposed development site?\n\n\u25cf What soil and groundwater monitoring is currently required?\n\n\u25cf Who is responsible for conducting that monitoring?\n\n\u25cf How frequently are samples taken?\n\n\u25cf What contaminants are being tested for?\n\n\u25cf Where are the monitoring wells located?\n\n\u25cf What are the most recent test results?\n\n\u25cf Are there existing land-use restrictions, institutional controls, environmental covenants, or other restrictions on the property?\n\n\u25cf Could excavation, grading, foundations, utility installation, dewatering, or other construction activities disturb contaminated soil or groundwater?\n\n\u25cf What agency has the authority to stop construction if contamination is discovered or disturbed?\n\n\u25cf What additional environmental review is required before construction?\n\n\u25cf Who will pay for any additional testing, remediation, or environmental response necessitated by the project?\n\nConcerns 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.\n\nFederal and State Guardrails for AI and Data Centers\n\nThe 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.\n\nThe recent warnings by AI executives themselves, their employees, and other experts are chilling and require immediate policy action. That\u2019s why I believe at the federal level, Congress must act now to establish appropriate guardrails. At a minimum, these standards should ensure:\n\n\u25cf Large data centers, not residential ratepayers, pay the costs of the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure required to serve them;\n\n\u25cf Developers disclose projected electricity and water demand and the sources of those resources;\n\n\u25cf Major facilities undergo comprehensive environmental review addressing water, air quality, stormwater, wetlands, wildlife, emissions, backup power, noise, traffic, and cumulative impacts;\n\n\u25cf Water use is independently monitored, publicly reported, and subject to enforceable protections for drinking water, groundwater, rivers, and wetlands;\n\n\u25cf Noise limits are independently measured and enforceable;\n\n\u25cf Nearby schools and residential neighborhoods are protected;\n\n\u25cf Emergency-response planning is developed with local officials;\n\n\u25cf Communities have meaningful participation and enforceable community-benefit agreements; and\n\n\u25cf There is clear public accountability for which governmental entity has authority to enforce each requirement.", 1, "2026-09-16T09:43:13Z", "2026-09-16T09:44:22Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=7329"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8287997916340828, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}