Friends,

In order to devote more time to my family, I have decided not to seek re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

It is an honor to have the trust and confidence of the citizens of Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District.

I have been blessed with an exceptionally competent staff who have helped thousands of Kentuckians over the years. Moreover, together we have passed critical pieces of legislation and enacted laws to reform our government, strengthen our national security, protect our veterans and service members, create economic revival and energy independence, and improve transparency and accountability of the government.

As Chairman of the Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Human Resources, we have set a new tone that combines genuine concern for the least among us, with pragmatic process reforms that are both compassionate and conservative. That attitude and focus have produced real results and proactive bi-partisan legislation, despite the negative partisan climate in Washington. Indeed, we have proven that people of diverse world views can find common ground and produce meaningful results.

I thank the people of Kentucky’s Fourth District for this honor and look forward to continued service to our community and to our Republic in other capacities as I return to the private sector. I also want to thank my friend and mentor, former Senator Jim Bunning, for his example of steadfast character and unimpeachable integrity in service.

Most of all, I thank my wonderful wife Pat and our children for their unfailing love, grace under pressure, and tireless encouragement in answering this call to serve.

I am grateful that I live in a country where a boy like me, growing up with little hope, could walk a path by God’s grace that has allowed me to encounter His peace, the joy of true love, and service at the highest levels of our elected national government. Truly, we are blessed in this Republic.”

Sincerely,

Geoff Davis

By Chris Moody, The Daily Caller

House Republicans unveiled a new job creation agenda Thursday that calls for lower tax rates, international trade agreements that spur the sale of American-made products and makes it tougher for the federal government to enact regulations on businesses.

House Republicans have spent the first months of the new session focusing largely on cutting spending: They struck a deal with Democrats to fund the government through the fiscal year that cut billions from the federal budget and passed a House resolution budget that would cut $4.4 trillion over then years. But now, Republicans say, is the time to emphasize the “growth” portion of the “cut and grow” agenda the party outlined last November in their “Pledge to America.”

“We have said all along there are two tracks,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday. “This is the other piece of the painting. The one side of the painting is about spending reductions and managing down the debt through expenditure reduction. The other is about growth.”

The initiative would drop the individual corporate and individual top tax rate 10 points to 25 percent, eliminate government regulation on industries that operate in the country, make it more difficult for the government to enact new regulations, initiate tax incentives for domestic energy production and end the double tax on American companies operating overseas.

Read the rest: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/26/house-republicans-unveil-jobs-agenda/

One of the most important political stories of 2011 will be regulation, as the backwash of the outgoing Congress hits the federal agencies and the White House drives its agenda via rule-making rather than democratic consent. Republicans are vowing to thwart these maneuvers, but the coming hostilities might also provide an opening to reform the modern administrative state.

The basic problem is that Congress delegates far too much power to regulators, passing ambiguous laws that convert the agencies into quasi-legislative bodies that aren’t politically accountable. Even if President Obama is exploiting this trend like never before, it is hardly new, nor unique to either party. Most politicians support the status quo because, being politicians, they can take credit for popular goals and then blame the bureaucracy for the costs and problems they create.

Yet the Constitution vested Congress with the duty to make laws, not to make vague suggestions about what it might be good for the law to be. And now there is a growing movement to force Members to take responsibility for the laws they pass, and to force Administrations to be accountable for the laws they create through regulation.

***
The last two years have offered an especially instructive lesson in regulatory excess. “Major” regulations are defined as those with annual effect on the economy exceeding $100 million, and over the past quarter-century both Democratic and Republican Administrations have averaged between 30 and 40 such rules a year. The Obama Administration promulgated 59 major regulations in 2009 and 62 in 2010. Another 191 are in the works, many of them based on little more than a vague Congressional order.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform is a tabula rasa that the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell estimates requires no fewer than 243 new rules by 11 agencies over a dozen years. In the mere 10 months since ObamaCare passed, HHS has engineered rules that impose both a ceiling on insurance industry profits and de facto price controls on private premiums. The EPA is abusing the clean-air laws of the 1970s to raise carbon energy prices as a cap-and-tax surrogate. Only last month, the Federal Communications Commission imposed “net neutrality” despite a federal court ruling that the action was outside its purview. There are many other examples.

As the regulatory state climbs to altitudes not seen since the 1970s, some Republicans are starting to think about a more rational system. One promising idea is a bill that would require Congress to approve major regulations. The concept was included in the House GOP’s campaign “pledge,” and it is codified in the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (Reins) Act, sponsored by Kentucky’s Geoff Davis in the House and South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint.

The bill guarantees an up-or-down vote (no Senate filibuster) on $100 million-plus economic regulations, which would only take effect if Congress passed a joint resolution and the President signed it. Such a procedural change would revolutionize government in practice and help restore the representative democracy the founders envisioned.

Liberals attack the Reins Act as antiregulatory, and it’s obviously true that rules would be written differently if they were subject to political give and take. But as New York Law professor David Schoenbrod points out, the bill is really pro-accountability. Congress could no longer get away with open-ended bills that evade the choices that make up public policy, while Administrations would need to seek support of a majority directly answerable to voters.

Liberals also cite the Reins Act as an emblem of tea party ignorance, constitutional division. They claim it is a reprise of the “legislative veto,” which the Supreme Court has rightly struck down as a violation of the separation of powers.

After the New Deal, Congress routinely attached veto clauses to legislation, reserving the unilateral right to nullify the exercise of a power that it had statutorily delegated to the President. Those riders ended in 1983, with INS v. Chadha. The Supreme Court held that Congress can’t intrude on an inherently executive function.

If a bill delegating power passes the House and Senate and the President signs it, the only way to reclaim the power is for both houses to pass another bill that the President also signs. Chadha is a mirror of the 1998 decision against the line-item veto, which the Court said gave the executive unconstitutional authority to amend bills passed by Congress.

But Chadha didn’t limit the other ways Congress can constitutionally rein in a delegated power. Through the power of the purse, a majority can deny funds to agencies to enforce decisions, as long as the President signs the appropriations bill. It can also stipulate that delegated powers expire every so often, forcing the President to seek Congressional approval if he wants to continue to exercise them.

An alternative to the legislative veto was first proposed by Stephen Breyer of all people, now a Supreme Court Justice. In a lecture at Georgetown in 1983, the then federal appeals judge suggested that Congress condition the exercise of a delegated legislative power on the enactment of a confirmatory statute, passed by both houses and signed by the President. It would be perfectly in keeping with the Constitution’s language, Mr. Breyer noted, while simulating the function of the traditional legislative veto.

The Reins Act is narrowly tailored to meet the Breyer standard. Like the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which provides a legislative fast-track for disapproving a regulatory measure, the bill involves both political branches as prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. But the Reins act is superior because it requires the active participation of Congress, rather than merely objecting to this or that.

Such a bill wouldn’t be necessary if Congress did a better job of writing laws that specify what they mean and aren’t as open to interpretation. But with unelected bureaucracies now determining the fate of entire industries and dictating individual behavior, the Reins Act is a constitutional way for Congress to hold itself and regulators accountable for what they do.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576049703586223080.html

Congressman Geoff Davis last night declared victory over Democratic challenger John Waltz in Kentucky’s Fourth Congressional District:

“I want to thank our supporters, friends, family and neighbors for the confidence you have shown in me. Over the last two weeks of this campaign, we were able to run a top grassroots operation. Volunteers across the Fourth District knocked on over 37,000 doors for the Republican team. I am honored that Kentuckians throughout the Fourth District have elected me to represent your thoughts, ideas, opinions and beliefs in Congress.

“Again, thank you for your support and confidence. It is a privilege to serve you.”

The ready candidate
Maysville Ledger-Independent

Even when he’s under the weather, as he was last week when he visited our office, Rep. Geoff Davis comes across as very well-informed on the important issues facing our nation — foreign policy, health care, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy. More than that, he knows and understands the issues facing those who call the Fourth District home — jobs, the economy, the environment, coal. For those reasons, we endorse Davis in his bid to retain his seat in Congress.

The northern Kentucky Republican and West Point graduate has put his mark on the district with constituent service that is second to none. He has offices throughout the district, including one in Maysville where residents come with a variety of problems Davis’ staff is ready to take on — from veterans issues to Social Security.

Davis is no stranger to the hardships many area residents are dealing with today as they see their paychecks getting squeezed tighter and tighter each week — during high school, he helped supplement his family’s income by working as a janitor and has dealt with the issues owners of small business face.

Despite being a member of what some have dubbed “the party of No,” Davis seems more than willing to sit down with those on the other side of the aisle and to come to a compromise without compromising his common sense approach and conservative values. He is a member of the Center Aisle Caucus, a group of Representatives who have a strong interest in promoting civility of Congress and bringing the two major parties together to work toward solving problems.

Locally, Davis has directed funds to our area to improve fire protection, house the homeless and improve our roads and schools, all to boost our quality of life while escaping the taint of projects identified as earmarks.

On the health care front, Davis opposed the health care bill passed by Congress earlier this year but is not without his own ideas of how to improve health care to Kentuckians, including allowing the purchase of health care insurance across state lines and tart reform.

Militarily, we suspect there are few who bring superior credentials to Washington. Davis has served as an Army Ranger and taught at the prestigious U.S. War College in Carlisle, Pa He is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in Kentucky when it comes to both military tactics and the political situation in the Middle East.

As for Davis’ opponent, Democrat John Waltz, we cannot comment. A request made for an interview with The Ledger Independent’s editorial board a few weeks ago was not returned.

No matter who takes control of Congress in January, Davis seems ready and willing to reach his hand across the aisle to get our economy moving, to create jobs and move our country forward. That’s the kind of voice and attitude we need in Washington today.

We urge voters in the Fourth District to visit the polls on Nov. 2 and return Geoff Davis to Congress as our U.S. Representative.

Carlisle Courier

Congressman Geoff Davis spent much of the day in Nicholas County on Monday. He took the opportunity to learn the key areas of concern to civic leaders and to share some of the things he has been able to accomplish, or that are currently in the process.

One of the major concerns Mr. Davis addressed was the way government has been encroaching into private lives over the past couple of years, in a way that is very different than the traditional Democrat – Republican differences. He pointed out that especially in this part of Kentucky, Republicans and Democrats (referring to the voters) will agree on about 85 percent of the issues.

According to Davis, the first “out-of-the-box street fight” was over the Cap and Trade issue, which he stated has been devastating to Kentucky’s economy.

The second example Davis cited was over health care, and other regulatory agencies who pass demands onto state and local governments without providing them any real recourse. He cited as examples the Corps of Engineers showing up in farmers’ fields with water issues and in the school system with “No Child Left Behind” with large, unfunded mandates being place on the schools.