E-Newsletter

During the recent election season, many congressional candidates who voted against various spending bills were criticized by their opponents for voting against those bills and yet working to get money for their districts from programs authorized by said bills.

I submit to you, it is not disingenuous but a misunderstanding of the role of Congress. This may require you to remember your civics lessons from school.

At its core, any member of U.S. Congress has two significantly different roles.

One comes in the realm of policy. We are policymakers, and that means drafting legislation, analyzing bills, suggesting changes and then voting for or against the legislation.

Further, the policymaker is tasked to meet with stakeholders, address witnesses in committee, and attend numerous forums.

Whenever I weigh decisions on supporting or opposing a particular bill, I always consider if the bill is in the best interests of my constituents.

What’s confusing is once a bill is passed, the legislator switches from the classic policymaker role to an ombudsman role.

The ombudsman role of a Congressman is interfacing with the government for their constituents.

My office can help folks with their passports, assist in inquiries related to federal matters and provide insight on federal grant applications.

Further, the ombudsman role includes working with constituents, whether it be an individual, institution or another government agency, in receiving benefits passed by Congress.

The money is going to be spent, whether I approve of the underlying policy or not. And as an ombudsman, it is my duty to help get federal assistance for projects in the Ninth.

Because of these two different roles, some will misleadingly claim a lawmaker is not being consistent when they voted against the underlying bill but applaud the money coming to the district.

But it’s not that simple.

Why you may ask? Let me explain.

Legislation X may come in the form of a government spending bill, where massive numbers of programs are funded in bills that may be thousands of pages.

Voting against the bill is a policy decision. When voting no, I, like many lawmakers, will have determined that the overall bill, despite some good in it, will do more harm than good.

Once the bill becomes law, however, in my role as an ombudsman, it is my job to get money for my district.

One example of this is the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). I voted against the bill, which injected billions of dollars into the economy in an effort to advance a Green New Deal agenda, funded the hiring of 87,000 new Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents, and place new regulations and requirements on some prescription drugs.

The IRA passed and became law.

At that point, the provisions in the bill allowed for any number of clean energy projects to come about. Projects in the Ninth District became eligible to receive federal dollars, such as a lumber grader for a lumber company. Further, the IRA included a tax credit provision for zero-emissions nuclear power production, promoting an energy source that can produce safer, more affordable energy at a more efficient rate.

If the bill only had money directed towards nuclear power production, or the timber industry, I likely would have supported it.

But the bill was massive, and most of it in my opinion was a waste of taxpayer dollars. As the legislator, I voted no. As the ombudsman, I applauded these reasonable projects.

A separate project under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), known as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, authorized investments for the deployment of broadband service to areas of the country that lack sufficient high-speed internet, including rural areas.

After the IIJA’s passage, Governor Youngkin submitted Virginia’s BEAD application. Other state applications were approved during this time, while it remained to be seen if Virginia’s application was accepted or denied.

This year, I pressed an official from the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) on why Virginia’s application hadn’t been approved. To me, Youngkin’s proposal was a great plan to close the digital divide and equip rural Virginia with access to broadband.

Following the hearing, Virginia’s application was approved. I did not vote for the IIJA as the legislator, but as the ombudsman, I was happy to press federal officials to help Virginia and the Ninth District.

I may not always believe in the underlying bill, but nonetheless, once it is law, I will not stop advocating for you, your businesses and our region.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office.  You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.

###