What else would we expect from the House Ethics Committee?  They rarely act -- but when they do, there are rarely, if ever, consequences [1]:

The House ethics committee cleared the way for Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) to pursue a $5.6 million earmark for a transit center one-tenth of a mile away from one property and less than a mile from four other properties that he owns in his district.

The ethics committee found that Calvert’s earmark would not “have a direct and foreseeable effect” on his real estate. The evaluation came in a letter to Calvert dated May 3, about two weeks before he announced a plan to submit all earmarks and potential conflicts of interest to the ethics panel for vetting.

Below is an excerpt about Rep. Calvert's land deals from our report, Beyond DeLay [2].  Seems that Calvert's earmarks have had the direct effect of increasing property values.  We'd say that's a "direct and foreseeable effect," but we're not the House Ethics Committee:

In 2005, Rep. Calvert and his real estate partner, Woodrow Harpole Jr., paid $550,000 for a four acre piece of land at Martin Street and Seaton Avenue in Perris, just 4 miles south of the March Air Reserve Base in California. Less than a year after buying the land, without making any improvements to the run down parcel, they sold the property for $985,000, a 79% increase. During this period, Rep. Calvert pushed through an earmark to secure $8 million for an overhaul and expansion of a freeway interchange 16 miles from the property, as well as an additional $1.5 million for commercial development in the area around the airfield.

In another deal, a group of investors bought property a few blocks from the site of a proposed interchange, for $975,000. Within six months, after the earmark for the interchange was appropriated, the parcel of land sold for $1.45 million. Rep. Calvert’s firm received a commission on the sale.

By using his position to earmark funds to increase the value of his own property, Rep. Calvert violated the prohibition against using his position as a member of Congress to advance his own financial interests. as well as the House rule requiring all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House.”