Congratulations to Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) for his dramatic come-from-behind victory for House Majority Leader. The reports of his stunned reaction to his victory ring true; no one could have known the outcome, especially after the first-ballot results were announced. Now comes the hard part.

The outcome of the leadership contest is probably a good reflection of the collective desire of the House Republican Conference: Stand for change, but not too much change. Change obviously includes reforms that respond to the scandals on Capitol Hill, from former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) to ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and many of those associated with him, which will almost certainly engulf several Members of Congress and top staffers.

When Boehner announced his candidacy for the Leader position, he emphasized his role as one of the House Republican majority’s original reformers. In a Jan. 18 press release, he said, in response to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), “Yes, Republicans are outraged by the actions of Jack Abramoff. But we’re outraged, in part, because our standards are higher than the standards that were held by the Democratic majority we replaced after 1994. We are repulsed at Abramoff and his crimes, in part, because they remind us of the corruption we uprooted and stamped out when we took the majority away from the Democrats a decade ago.

“An honorable majority responds to its stumbles with contrition, reform, and an effort to fix that which is broken. This is precisely the path Speaker [Dennis] Hastert (R-Ill.) and [Rules] Chairman [David] Dreier (R-Calif.) have charted for our majority in recent days. I applaud the Speaker for his leadership, and challenge Minority Leader Pelosi to join Republicans in our effort to change the way Congress works.”

But the path that Hastert charted, which included an early pledge to ban all privately funded travel, was too much for many Members. So, too, was the hint that reform would include the banning of most earmarks. On the weekend talk shows, Boehner reflected not a reformist zeal but the unease of many of his colleagues. “In the past, when these scandals have erupted, what’s happened is Congress has overreacted, and two days later nobody knew what happened,” he said.

He offered a more diluted approach: “Bringing more transparency to this relationship, I think, is the best way to control it. But taking actions to ban this and ban that, when there’s no appearance of a problem, there’s no foundation of a problem, I think, in fact, does not serve the institution well.”

Transparency is dandy, and disclosure is useful. But if all that happens here is more disclosure--and a bar on former Members going on the floor or into the gym, something already approved by the House--that will be a huge disappointment and a massive failure of responsibility by the majority.

Boehner pointed out that the actions now drawing so much fire were all illegal under current law. True, and the Justice Department Office of Public Integrity has done a commendable job here. But what actions have been taken by the House ethics committee? Enforcement in Congress is nonexistent, and it is incumbent upon the reformer who was so active in 1994--and who used that identity to secure support for his rise to Majority Leader--to show his spurs in 2006 on ethics reform. No changes in the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers is as important as creating a meaningful, credible and robust ethics process.

There is more. As Majority Leader, Boehner needs to alter fundamentally the way the House operates. He needs to create a fair process--fair to Republican moderates, Republican conservatives and minority Democrats. A process that allows reasonable amendments. A process that mandates fair and transparent conference committees, with participation by all and no hanky-panky on conference reports after the conference ends. A process that does not use subterfuge and dishonesty to waive all points of order through self-executing rules passed on party-line votes and whipped as procedural matters. A process that actually allows minority alternatives--not one that talks a good game about motions to recommit with instructions, but then tilts the rules and norms by making votes on those motions party-line issues as well.

And a process that works--meaning that it actually has the House doing legislative work more than two days a week with ample weeks off. The House has a huge agenda for 2006. Just for starters:

• The fate of the USA PATRIOT Act is unresolved.

• The wiretapping controversy begs for serious oversight as well as a re-examination of the existing law, known as FISA.

• Immigration is a looming issue for many Americans and a top priority for the president and Congress.

• Budget priorities and deficits are vexing.

• The Quadrennial Defense Review shows the need for a searching look at the future of defense priorities, rather than just a rubber stamp of the Pentagon budget and an effort to keep the Iraq war costs out of the budget.

• The policy in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the organization of the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency demand serious oversight and action.

• The president’s call for a new energy policy to combat our “addiction” to oil--and a new technology initiative to keep us ahead in global competition--should get intensive examination by Congress.

Not to mention the looming health care crisis, the faltering rollout of the Medicare prescription drug bill, the continuing difficulties with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act and the burgeoning pension crisis.

It was evident months ago that most of these issues were going to be on Congress’ plate in 2006. Yet the House took off the entire month of January! And take a look at the House calendar for the year ahead. The House is scheduled to have a total, for the entire year, of 71 days in which votes will take place, along with an additional 26 days when no votes will occur before 6:30 p.m. If past experience is any guide, few, if any, of the latter days will see anything substantive done--these are the Tuesday nights when Members get back, have a procedural vote or two and prepare for the heavy lifting on Wednesday before leaving town again early Thursday afternoon.

This is a disgrace. It is no way to run a deliberative body. The legislation that emerges from this schedule is often slipshod and ill-considered; legislators lose any sense of their role in crafting substantive policy, have no opportunity to develop meaningful relationships with their colleagues or to consider carefully their points of view.

Boehner has been a serious legislator. He would be doing his party, the House and the country a great service if he created a genuine working body--five days a week at least 30 weeks of the year. Is that too much to ask?

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.