If it is true that the Abramoff scandal, Rep. Tom DeLay’s troubles, Rep. Duke Cunningham’s guilt and an assortment of other House and Senate ethics challenges will force Congress to consider serious reform, it has a broad and sensible bill from House Democrats waiting for approval.

Members of both parties have plenty of incentive to sign on, though that isn’t likely to happen. The reform is sponsored by Democratic Reps. Tom Allen of Maine, David Obey of Wisconsin, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David Price of North Carolina. Much of it is immediately understandable.

For instance, it shuts down travel and lodging favors from lobbyists, puts limits on deficit spending and how long a vote can last; sets the pace of work, how long members have to read legislation before voting and procedures for bill conferences with the Senate. Each of these parts of the reform would require full debate, but the meaning behind them is clear.

“We understand that if the majority works its will properly, Democrats will still lose a lot of votes,” Rep. Allen said in a speech introducing the reform. “But we believe that if the House works properly, we can heal political divisions and restore faith in government.”

More than becoming law soon, this reform is a declaration, on the record, of how Democrats pledge to lead the House if elected to the majority. They are saying they would restore the ability for debate, in public, with a vote trail on how members voted for individual pieces of legislation. Increasingly in conference with the Senate, for instance, agreements are struck without votes so the public is shut out of the process.

That is, of course, a fine reason for Republicans to sign onto a Democratic reform. A second could be pointed out by many who are enduring the complications of Medicare’s new drug benefit. They may recall that the bill would not have passed but for late-night arm-twisting and more in the House, with a vote held open for hours beyond the usual time to force reluctant conservatives to agree to a bill they thought too expensive.

Only later did members of Congress learn it had been misled about the cost of this benefit, which would not have passed without deception and House pressure. The reforms presented this week would have prevented that situation and forced Congress to work further on the drug benefit.

Several of the reform proposals are good-government measures that are immediately appealing: limiting the roles of lobbyists while requiring full public debate would not be outwardly opposed by any politician. Similarly, another provision would prohibit removing a member’s local projects in spending bills – called earmarks – based solely on how that member votes on legislation. And who could object to requiring the House members to state any financial conflicts of interest when they advocate for particular earmarks?

It’s hard to imagine a Republican Congress turning to Democrats for guidance on running the House. But the evidence for reform is abundant – in falling congressional approval numbers as well as the scandals – and the legislation sponsored by Rep. Allen and others is a powerful response to serious problems in the House.