AACCENT Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2026
Bottom line
The AACCENT Act aims to address communication barriers and discrimination faced by individuals with significant expressive communication disabilities by funding national resource centers focused on augmentative and alternative communication.
What it actually does
This bill, the AACCENT Act, directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a network of three National Resource Centers on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). These centers will provide training, technical assistance, and resources to individuals with significant expressive communication disabilities (SECD), their families, educators, and service providers. The goal is to improve access to AAC, promote awareness of relevant laws, enhance self-advocacy skills, support data collection, and increase societal understanding of SECD.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that communication is a fundamental human right and essential for full participation in society, yet millions of Americans with SECD face significant barriers and discrimination. They contend that establishing these national centers will provide much-needed resources, training, and advocacy to ensure individuals with SECD can access the AAC tools and support necessary to learn, work, socialize, and exercise self-determination, thereby fulfilling the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Opponents contend
No organized opposition is typically raised against bills that support disability services and access to communication tools, especially when framed as addressing fundamental rights. Potential concerns, if any, might revolve around the allocation of federal funds, administrative overhead, or the specific structure of the grant program, but these are not explicitly stated in the bill's context.
The bill is moderately detailed but clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 5
Establishment of National Resource Centers on Augmentative and Alternative Communication
This section mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award three 5-year grants through open competition to eligible entities. These grants will fund the creation and maintenance of a network of National Resource Centers dedicated to Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), with one designated as the lead administrative center to coordinate activities. The total funding for these grants is capped at $9,000,000 per year.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a centralized network of national resource centers is crucial for coordinating efforts, standardizing best practices, and ensuring equitable access to AAC across the country, which is currently fragmented and insufficient.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it establishes a program to address a recognized need. Potential concerns might be about the efficiency of a centralized model versus local initiatives, but these are not explicitly articulated in the bill.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for broad, coordinated national impact and the potential for local needs to be overlooked if centers are not sufficiently responsive to diverse regional contexts.
Section 6
Mandated Activities for National Resource Centers
This section details the core functions of the newly established National Resource Centers. These include increasing access to and effective implementation of AAC for all individuals with SECD, building the capacity of various stakeholders (individuals, educators, families, professionals) to support AAC users, promoting awareness and implementation of relevant laws, enhancing leadership and self-advocacy skills among individuals with SECD, supporting improved data collection on this population, and increasing general societal awareness about SECD and AAC.
Section 4(1) and Section 4(5)
Definition and Composition of Eligible Entities and Advisory Councils
This provision defines "eligible entity" as a partnership of at least two organizations, where the controlling partner is a U.S.-headquartered nonprofit led by individuals with significant expressive communication disabilities (SECD). The partnership must also include an institution of higher education or an association of professionals/educators. Crucially, each eligible entity must be advised by an 11-person advisory council composed exclusively of individuals with SECD, ensuring diverse representation in terms of backgrounds, identities, disabilities, ages, and AAC forms used.
Section 9(b) and 9(c)
Integration with Existing Federal Initiatives and Broad Stakeholder Outreach
This section directs the National Resource Centers to coordinate their work with current and future Federal Government policies and activities related to self-advocacy, supported decision-making, community living, and competitive integrated employment for individuals with disabilities. It also mandates extensive information dissemination to a wide array of stakeholders, including individuals with SECD and their families, educational agencies, law enforcement, employers, various government agencies (e.g., Medicaid, vocational rehabilitation), and disability advocacy organizations.
The definition of "significant expressive communication disability" explicitly states that it "does not apply to an individual whose primary communication disability is visual or auditory in nature, but does apply to an individual with a disability described in subparagraph (A) who also has a visual or auditory communication disability and who may communicate using sign language."
Section 4(11)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define the scope of a term, ensuring the bill's focus remains on expressive communication challenges not primarily stemming from sensory impairments, while still allowing for co-occurring disabilities.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clarifies the bill's specific focus on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for expressive speech difficulties, preventing dilution of resources for its target population. It acknowledges that individuals can have multiple disabilities but prioritizes the expressive communication aspect for this program.
Case against: Critics might argue that by explicitly excluding individuals whose primary communication disability is visual or auditory, the bill could inadvertently create a perception of separate or lesser needs for these groups, even if other programs exist to serve them. The nuance of "primary" could also lead to interpretive challenges.
Estimated impact: This provision narrows the scope of the population directly served by these centers, potentially affecting millions of individuals with sensory disabilities if their expressive communication challenges are deemed secondary.
A national resource center receiving grant funds shall use "not more than 15 percent of the funds for the administrative costs of carrying out activities under this Act."
Section 9(e)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to ensure that the majority of grant funds are directed towards programmatic activities rather than overhead. It's a fiscal control measure.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this cap ensures efficient use of taxpayer money, maximizing the direct impact of the grants on services and resources for individuals with SECD. It demonstrates fiscal responsibility.
Case against: Some organizations might argue that a 15% cap is too restrictive for complex national programs, especially those involving extensive coordination, data collection, and technical assistance across diverse stakeholders. They might contend it could hinder effective program management, evaluation, and outreach, particularly for smaller or newer organizations.
Estimated impact: This cap will directly influence how the $9,000,000 annual appropriation is spent, ensuring at least $7,650,000 goes to direct program activities.