MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Brad Schneider (D-IL)

Source: {United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bobby Scott (3rd District of Virginia)

Headline: Scott: Congress Should Support Ukraine Without Expanding Trump’s Tariff Powers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bobby Scott (VA-03) issued the following statement after voting against the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act:

“I strongly support Ukraine and efforts to hold Vladimir Putin accountable for his brutal war. I stand with the Ukrainian people and have repeatedly voted to support Ukraine. However, I cannot support legislation that uses support for Ukraine as leverage to give Donald Trump even more authority to impose his reckless tariffs and trade wars that raise prices on American families. At a time when families are already struggling with the affordability crisis, Congress should be working to lower costs, not giving Donald Trump another tool to increase them.”

 

# # #

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ted Lieu (33 District of California)

WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D-Los Angeles County) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) urged President Trump to raise the principle of maintaining a “human-in-the-loop” in nuclear launch decisions during his meeting with General Secretary Xi Jinping next week. The United States already has the policy of ensuring humans are the decision-makers in the employment of nuclear weapons thanks to a provision authored by Rep. Lieu and Sen. Markey in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act.

In the letter, Congressman Lieu and Senator Markey write:

Dear President Trump: 

As you prepare to meet with General Secretary Xi Jinping next week, we respectfully ask you to raise the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) and its use in nuclear weapons launch systems. The United States already requires that the use of AI should not compromise the integrity of nuclear safeguards or compromise the principle of maintaining a “human-in-the-loop” in the employment of nuclear weapons. We urge you to get General Secretary Xi to commit the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to the same principle that the United States already follows.

Sec. 1638 of the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act declared that it is the policy of the United States that AI should not compromise the integrity of nuclear safeguards. A human must be kept “in the loop” for all nuclear launch decisions. AI should never launch a nuclear weapon by itself. Since the United States follows this basic principle, so should the PRC.

Your direct engagement on this matter is critical to ensuring AI doesn’t accidentally or intentionally cause a preventable nuclear disaster. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

READ THE LETTER HERE

Source: United States House of Representatives – Reprepsentative Kathy Castor (FL14)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Reps. Kathy Castor (FL-14) and Gabe Evans (CO-08) celebrated the passage of their bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act, which protects American families and small businesses from the costs of energy and grid upgrades required for new hyperscale data centers.

The Ratepayer Protection Act requires state utility regulators to establish rules ensuring communities do not pay for the costs of building new power plants, transmission lines and other upgrades to serve data centers. Without proper safeguards, families and small businesses in communities where data center development occurs could see their electric bills skyrocket. The Ratepayer Protection Act ensures that wealthy Big Tech companies cover the full energy and infrastructure costs of new data center development and are held accountable for their promises.

“Floridians already are dealing with sky-high electric bills. They should not be forced to subsidize the enormous energy demands of the world’s richest corporations,” said Rep. Castor. “If Big Tech builds a massive AI data center, the Big Tech company—not hardworking families, farmers or small businesses—should pay for their power and grid upgrades. The bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act is an important first step that can help lower costs for our neighbors back home and empower states to set strict guardrails.”

“Hardworking families should not have to subsidize the energy demands of data centers. America needs the infrastructure to lead the world in AI and outcompete Communist China, but we cannot have that growth at the expense of hardworking families, farmers, seniors, and small businesses. My bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act ensures large data centers pay for the infrastructure they require while giving states the flexibility to determine what works best for their communities. I’m incredibly proud to lead the charge on this pivotal issue, ensure our ratepayers are protected, and keep American innovation moving forward,” said Rep. Evans.

Castor strongly opposes data center development in Hillsborough County due to high electric bills and environmental concerns and pressed the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners in a September 10, 2026 letter to “act decisively to protect Hillsborough County residents, resources and long-term sustainability.”

The Ratepayer Protection Act builds on Rep. Castor’s leadership on the Stopping Hikes in Electricity from large Load Demands (SHIELD) Act, which she introduced with Rep. Mike Levin (CA-49) in January.

Background

If enacted, the Ratepayer Protection Act would direct state regulators to adopt new guardrails for new data centers with a demand of 100 megawatts or more, including:

• Recovery of the full cost of upgrades for the data center through a special rate charge or other agreements. This ensures data centers are responsible for the costs associated with serving their demand rather than passing those costs on to families and businesses through higher monthly electricity bills.
• Financial assurances that require the data center to pay for any generation, transmission, or other infrastructure necessary to serve their load, protecting utilities and ratepayers from that financial burden. This protects utilities and existing customers from being left responsible for upgrade costs associated with a data center, even if that data center later reduces operations or leaves the system entirely.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

Griffith Statement on House Passage of Bill to Authorize USACE Project for Town of Richlands

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA)

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 9340 – the Ratepayer Protection Act. This legislation protects local communities from electricity cost hikes by directing state regulators to make data center companies pay the full cost for its use of electricity infrastructure. Under the bill, all state utility commissions will hold proceedings on large-load electric rates and rules for data centers that draw more than 100 MW of power. The bill now heads to the U.S. Senate for further consideration.

Following House passage of the bill, U.S. Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA), who voted for the bill and is a co-sponsor of similar legislation, issued the following statement:

“Communities in Virginia’s Ninth District should not foot the bill for data centers’ electricity. 

“Electricity consumption costs associated with building and operating data centers must be passed along to the data centers, not the household ratepayer.

“With this bill, data centers are on notice. Under the watch of this Congress, I will continue to promote responsible federal guardrails while supporting local autonomy over data centers.”

BACKGROUND

Congressman Griffith is also a co-sponsor of H.R. 6529 – the Protecting Families from AI Data Center Energy Costs Act. 

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

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. 

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

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.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (8th District of New York)

Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke on the House Floor in opposition to legislation that would expand Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs and continue his failed global trade war that is making life far too expensive for everyday Americans.

LEADER JEFFRIES: I rise in strong support of the underlying bill to honor the heroic, brave, patriotic Tuskegee Airmen, part of the Greatest Generation, who stood up against fascism, authoritarianism and the forces that were trying to bring about totalitarianism all across Europe and to the rest of the world. We can learn and be inspired by the courage, the character and the conviction of the Tuskegee Airmen. And it’s unfortunate that some in this administration are trying to erase their history. But that history is not just Black history. It’s American history. We will never let it be erased. We must continue to be informed by it, encouraged by it and inspired by it.

As I was thinking about this on the way over—I’m certainly so thankful to Congressman Shomari Figures for his leadership in advancing this legislation and for continuing in every possible way to stand up for his constituents of every race in the great state of Alabama. As I was thinking about the Tuskegee Airmen and the greatest generation who rescued the world from Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany and fascism, I thought how ironic it is that we’re on the Floor today debating legislation with respect to Russia, Vladimir Putin and their horrific invasion of Ukraine. Now, House Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer and many others, have been at the forefront of standing up for the people of Ukraine, pushing back against the effort to run them over, pushing back against tyranny and propaganda and the horrors that have been inflicted on them by Vladimir Putin and this war of aggression that Russia has launched.

We will continue to, at all times, stand behind the Ukrainian people, support their courage and their bravery in their fight, an existential one, against Vladimir Putin and Russia. We believe it’s a fight not just for their territorial integrity, but it’s also a battle between the forces of democracy versus the forces of autocracy, the forces of freedom versus the forces of tyranny, the forces of truth versus the forces of propaganda. And the United States of America has always stood on the side of democracy, freedom and truth, which is why we must always continue to stand on the side of the Ukrainian people. And that’s our pledge as House Democrats. We’ve been there with the Ukrainian people from the very beginning. But this legislation that will be before us today, unfortunately, in my view, does not accomplish the objectives that some may, in good faith, in this House or over in the Senate be trying to accomplish.

All of us, I believe, certainly as House Democrats, will continue to stand up for the Ukrainian people. But the manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the President of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia. In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day. That’s particularly the case because President Trump has shown great reluctance over the 10 years that he’s been in our faces here in the United States of America to actually side with the Ukrainian people. He recently blamed Ukraine for the increase in diesel prices. No, Mr. President, diesel prices have increased because of your reckless and costly war of choice in Iran. He suggested that somehow President Zelenskyy, who has been a brave and courageous wartime leader, and the Ukrainian people have visited the horror, the terror, the war upon themselves. No, one person bears responsibility for it: Vladimir Putin.

Many of us wonder why the President has been so reluctant to aggressively confront the bully of Eastern Europe. One of the things we’ve learned from the Tuskegee Airmen, from the great leaders of that time, from the Greatest Generation, from FDR, from Churchill, is that you have to confront the bully, not appease the bully. So we find ourselves once again, in 2026, just like the Tuskegee Airmen found themselves in the early to mid-1940s in the FDR, Churchill versus Chamberlain moment: you either are going to confront the bully or appease the bully. That’s what Chamberlain did. And when you appease the bully, it doesn’t work out. We learned that lesson, or should have, in 1939. And yet we find ourselves at this moment in time, some, including the highest reaches of the federal government in the executive branch, seemingly more interested in appeasing Vladimir Putin, not confronting him. And that’s why I’ve got real concerns, and I’m not in a position to support this legislation, notwithstanding the fact that I’m proud to represent more Ukrainian Americans than any other Member of Congress in the country back home in South Brooklyn, in Coney Island and in Brighton Beach, an incredible patriotic community.

I say to my constituents: we will continue to stand with the Ukrainian people in Ukraine until victory is won, but this legislation does not provide a path to secure that. Worse yet, what this legislation will do is give Donald Trump perhaps unfettered authority to unleash tariffs on the American people in ways that have already cost everyday Americans thousands of dollars in additional expense per year. Why in the world, in the middle of an affordability crisis that is not a hoax, it’s very real—far too many people in this country, working hard, playing by the rules, can’t thrive, can barely survive in this failed economy. Life way too expensive in the United States of America. Why in the world would this Congress or the People’s House give this President unfettered authority to visit more tariffs on the world that will have an adverse economic impact on the American people? I can’t do it, because I’m standing up for everyday Americans who are suffering in this failed economy with a president who promised to lower costs on day one. Costs haven’t gone down in America. Costs have gone up. And one of the reasons they’ve gone up is because of the Trump Tariffs that have increased costs on everyday Americans. Thousands of additional dollars in expense per year on groceries, on goods, on cars, even on homeownership. And so why in the world would this Congress give this President additional authority to visit that kind of economic harm on the American people?

And so, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the bill…because, substantively, it will not accomplish the objective, which is to stand with the American people, stand with the Ukrainian people, stand with democracy, stand with freedom, stand with truth and push back against tyranny. And this bill at the same time could give the President an additional tool to visit economic harm on the American people. I thank you for yielding. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama for bringing this legislation honoring the Tuskegee Airmen. And at this moment in time, when we see renewed tyranny coming out of Eastern Europe by Vladimir Putin and Russian aggression, let’s summon the courage, the character and the conviction that the Greatest Generation showed and not appease the bully, but confront the bully until victory is won.

Full Floor remarks can be watched here.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Brett Guthrie (2nd District Kentucky)

Ratepayer Protection Act Passes House with Strong Bipartisan Support