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

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.  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.”