For several months, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has been responsible for leading the task force charged with reporting a recommendation to Speaker Pelosi about creating an independent commission to hear and advise on ethics complaints against members of the House.

The Capuano task force has stopped meeting, according to Congressional Quarterly ($). Apparently, "some Democrats ... fear that a change in the current ethics process would leave them vulnerable to politically motivated complaints." As opposed to the status quo?

What is the prognosis for the Capuano task force? Says a top Democratic leadership aide: "It's not dead, but it's in a coma."

The Emanuel amendment to the Financial Services/General Government appropriations bill, which would have defunded part of the Office of Vice President, failed by a vote of 209 to 217 (roll call). The amendment was an attempt to get the OVP to comply with a request for information regarding the US attorneys scandal (See this Think Progress post for more).

Correction: Vice President Cheney's claim was about classified material, which, under an executive order, a National Archives offices oversees (link).

An article in The Hill this morning quotes GOP Sen. Larry Craig (ID), responding to a question about whether President Bush was being hypocritical for requesting hundreds of earmarks even while criticizing them and vowing to cut the number of earmarks in half this year:

"Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity."

According to the article, Rep. David Obey estimates that Bush had requested over 800 earmarks in the Energy-Water appropriations bill alone. Nevertheless, Bush has promised to veto it, on account of "the excess spending in this bill." Is that what Sen. Craig meant by 'duplicity'?

On May 24, the House adopted H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (aka, the lobbying and ethics bill), in a lop-sided 396-22 vote. The Senate passed S. 1, its own version of the bill back on January 18 almost unanimously, 96-2.

The versions differed on the revolving door, or "cooling-off" period during which former lawmakers and staff are barred from lobbying Congress, with the Senate bill doubling the period from the current one-year period to two, at the behest of co-sponsors Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The House included no such provision.

In the intervening five weeks, a silent struggle has been waged over appointment of the Democratic conferees, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) snubbing Feingold's request to serve and mute about Obama's expression of interest in serving in his place.

Now, per the New York Times this afternoon:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has blocked appointment of Senate conferees on the stalled lobbying bill, casting doubt on the future of the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying legislation in a dozen years. [But] according to Senate aides and outside ethics experts, this impasse could be resolved by simply bifurcating Senate and House revolving door rules. Under this proposal, the Senate would end up with stricter revolving door rules than the House.

If conferees cannot be appointed in short order on a bill overwhelmingly supported by both Houses, it will be tempting to say that Mr. Pallasch's concerns have been realized even without this proposal.

True or False: Whether the laws of the United States governing the cooling-off period (currently one year) restrictions for former Congressional staffers to lobby their erstwhile offices apply depends upon the salary of these staffers.

Answer: True (per Public Law 101-194).

Now -- and no cheating -- staffers are exempt from these revolving door restrictions if they:

• A. Were at no point one of the top-two paid staffers in a Congressional office
• B. Received a total of $200,000 or more during their tenure as Congressional staffers
• C. Received less than 75 percent of the salary earned by the member of Congress they served
• D. Received no compensation at all during their service

Hint: what are the chances that someone chosing an answer at random will get it wrong?

Casey Stengel, once asked about an unorthodox baseball strategy, replied, "Well, they say it couldn't be done, but it don't always work."

Yesterday, the House formally approved new earmarks rules, permitting points of order on appropriations conference reports if new earmarks have been added during conference. After only twenty mintues of debate following such a point of order, the House will vote on whether to consider the conference report.

The rule only applies to spending, not tax earmarks; it also requires earmark sponsors' disclosure of financial interest in a project. It otherwise is identical to a House rule adopted by the GOP-controled House last October.

In practical terms, the impact of the rule may be limited. Last week, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said this about how votes have gone in his past efforts to challenge earmarks on the House floor: "I get beat like a rented mule."

Rep. David Obey and the bipartisan House leadership deserve credit for arriving at an agreement yesterday regarding earmark procedures for most of the FY 2008 spending bills to come before the House floor over the next several weeks and months, providing that members will have the opportunity to review and amend such earmarks as they deem fit.

This agreement should have been unnecessary and the struggle to achieve it left many dismayed. But advocates, the media, ordinary citizens and, indubitably, members of Congress worked hard -- in some cases in the face of potential reprisal -- to restore a key measure of transparency and accountability to the budget-making process.

OMB Watch expresses particular gratitude to its partners in this effort, Americans for Prosperity, the Sunlight Foundation, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Late yesterday, the week-long impasse between House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-WI) and the House GOP leadership came to an end, with Obey agreeing generally to include earmarks in FY 2008 spending bills before they come to the floor. He had earlier declared that earmarks would be added in conference committee negotiations -- when bills are no longer subject to amendment -- making the removal of individual earmarks impossible.

Uncertain still are other terms of the agreement, particularly the amount of time and the degree to which these bills would be subject to amendment. The known details about the impact of the deal on specific spending bills are as follows:

• Homeland Security and Miliatry Construction-VA: No earmarks will be included in these bills until conference, but on June 18 the House is expected to adopt a rule allowing challenges to earmarks added to bills during conference negotiations.
• Energy-Water: No earmarks will be included in this bill, but the House will act separately on a package of earmarks to be added to the bill prior to conference.
• The remaining nine bills: Earmarks will be included in these bills when they reach the House floor and, therefore, subject to amendment.

How and why David Obey, with a distinguished 38-year career and reputation as a reformer in Congress, insisted so long on insulating earmarks from meaningful legislative review -- particularly in view of the reform mandate the new Democratic majority rode in on after last November's elections -- has been and will continue to be the subject of speculation in Washington.

Rumors circulated throughout the day today on Capitol Hill that some kind of "deal" had been struck between House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-OH) and the GOP House leadership regarding earmarks procedure, an issue that has attracted national media scrutiny this month.

At a morning news conference, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) went so far as to announce that Obey had agreed to let 10 of the 12 FY 2008 spending bills come to the floor prior to conference (that is, while still amendable), with the bills' earmarks included.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) rained on that parade, saying through a spokeswoman during the GOP news conference that "the deal to proceed with the appropriations bills ... is not final."

The deal appears to be hung up over how much floor time should be permitted on a couple of bills pending in the House.

Embattled GSA Administrator Lurita Doan returned to Capitol Hill today for a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) invited Doan to testify in the continuing saga of her tenure - this time to examine statements made by Doan that impugn the reputation of federal officials who cooperated with a Committee investigation into Ms. Doan's conduct at the General Services Administration. There was plenty of fireworks at the hearing, particularly because of the release one week earlier of a report by the White House's Office of Special Counsel that found Doan had broken the law by violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of government resources for political activity.