What other amendments address congressional powers or ethics?

1. Congressional Power: bills that reclaim oversight and the purse

A major thread in 2023–2025 legislation is reasserting Article I controls over the executive branch. The Protecting Our Democracy Act (S.2838) contains a “Title XXII—Reasserting Congressional Power of the Purse,” with provisions to strengthen congressional control under the Impoundment Control Act, create enforcement mechanisms for subpoenas, and make executive compliance with information requests more enforceable ^[1]. Senate and House budget and procedural amendments continue to pursue similar goals: for example, a Senate amendment to the FY2025 budget sought a reserve fund to back laws that limit agency rulemaking without congressional approval — an explicit effort to shift power from agencies to lawmakers ^[7].

2. Subpoenas and compliance: turning political leverage into legal tools

S.2838 also proposes statutory changes to make enforcement of congressional subpoenas judicially remediable and to subject executive noncompliance to defined legal consequences, not just political pressure ^[1]. Proponents argue this would prevent de facto refusals by executives; critics warn it could politicize the courts or create interbranch litigation. Available sources describe the bill’s enforcement language but do not settle whether courts would welcome that new role ^[1].

3. Rulemaking and congressional review: more time, more veto points

Separately, H.R.4112 — the “Congressional Review Reform Act of 2025” — would amend chapter 8 of title 5, U.S.C., to give Congress additional time to disapprove agency rules, effectively enlarging Congress’s window to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) as a check on agencies ^[8]. Supporters frame this as democratic oversight; opponents caution it could hinder timely regulatory responses and increase uncertainty for regulated parties. The Congressional Record and committee activity show multiple measures and resolutions that pursue similar CRA-strengthening aims ^{[9] [10]}.

4. Ethics reforms: a decades‑long, bipartisan policy stream

Congress has repeatedly amended ethics laws and internal rules. Landmark legislative steps include the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which tightened post-employment and disclosure rules ^[2], and the Ethics Reform Act of 1995, which restructured House oversight and established independent entities ^[3]. Contemporary proposals continue that pattern: the “Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act” seeks to bar Members and their spouses/dependents from trading or owning stocks, while other bills target disclosure, enforcement and independent oversight ^{[4] [11]}. These measures reflect bipartisan concern about conflicts of interest and market trading by lawmakers ^[12].

5. Institutional change vs. internal rules: competing reform strategies

There are two competing approaches evident in reporting and bills: (A) statutory, enforceable constraints enacted by Congress (e.g., ETHICS Act, Executive Branch ethics revisions), and (B) internal rule changes within the House and Senate (e.g., new standing rules, amendments to Rule X or Rule XXV) that adjust Committee jurisdictions, disclosure regimes, or travel rules ^{[6] [13] [5]}. Advocates for statutory fixes argue internal rules can be rolled back by future majorities; defenders of rules-based reform note statutes can be slow and vulnerable to constitutional challenges. The Congressional Research Service materials catalog both paths and options for future reform ^{[14] [15]}.

6. Enforcement architecture: independent offices and investigations

Multiple sources show repeated proposals to create or strengthen independent ethics entities. The House has experimented with the Office of Congressional Ethics and procedural changes to the Committee on Ethics, while CRS reports and campaign groups press for independent, non‑member-led enforcement bodies ^{[15] [14] [12]}. Past reforms created or reformed oversight mechanisms, but the record shows these institutions have been periodically revised to tighten or loosen investigator powers ^{[3] [15]}.

7. Political context and obstacles

Constitutional amendment proposals and politically sensitive resolutions (e.g., term‑limit or executive-power amendments) illustrate how high-stakes institutional reforms often face steep procedural hurdles and partisan disagreement — the Constitution Center notes many such proposals in the 119th Congress that rarely advance to ratification ^[16]. Likewise, enforcement measures that would shift power from political actors to courts or independent offices provoke pushback from those who see them as weakening elected-accountability channels ^{[7] [12]}. Available sources document the proposals and debates but do not provide definitive outcomes for many items ^{[1] [4]}.

8. How to follow developments

To track which measures will affect congressional power or ethics, monitor bill texts and committee actions for S.2838 (Protecting Our Democracy Act), H.R.4112 (Congressional Review Reform Act), the ETHICS Act and House rules packages such as H.Res.5; Congress.gov and the CRS reports cited above provide primary texts and institutional histories ^{[1] [8] [4] [5] [15]}.

Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided documents; available sources do not mention final enactment status or subsequent judicial review outcomes for these proposals.