When Congress gets extreme

In the television show “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” dozens of people scurry in an impossibly short time to rebuild the home for a family that has met calamity, erecting something stronger and finer, possibly with granite countertops. The emotional dash to completion, as the last roll of sod is being laid on the new front lawn, shows the restoration of both master bathroom and faith in humanity, the triumph of drywall over adversity.

So it is with Congress, which this week premiered Extreme Makeover: House (and Senate) Edition, in which its members will rebuild walls between themselves and lobbyists, buttressing those walls with stronger standards of behavior. Both parties have provided blueprints, hearings are scheduled to begin immediately and a newly restored Congress is to be unveiled presently.

The Washington calamity that inspired this barn-raisin’ spirit, of course, was Jack Abramoff. But what is most striking about the reforms is how little they have to do with Abramoff’s crimes, as if he merely blew the siding off an old house and exposed the rot that had been there for years. Abramoff has admitted to defrauding clients, misrepresenting fees and various tax dodges. There’s no need to reform these; they’re already illegal.

No one should mind if Congress wants to use Abramoff as an excuse to act. He of the wide-brimmed hat and greedy mien is as inspirational to the reform-minded as his intentions were disturbing. But when you look at the kinds of changes being proposed in Congress you see evidence of the capacious failure of an institution where, for instance, the desire for clubbiness or for something as mundane as power too often gets in the way of legislating.

With all the many reform plans being developed – and members of Maine’s delegation have gratifyingly pitched in with support – Susan Collins is the lucky Senate chairman whose Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will shape much of it. Recently, she said she is convinced something of substance can pass soon, but she also had a warning for colleagues: This isn’t as easy as it looks.

For instance, to challenge the thought that all lobbyists work for Fat Cats Amalgamated, Collins said she plans to call to testify lobbyists from the AARP and from the respected leadership think tank, the Aspen Institute, which pays for congressional travel to seminars. Should they be restricted from contacting Congress or providing forums for serious consideration of ideas? How about your local grass-roots pro-environment or anti-tax group?

Some problems, however, are easy to solve, and Congress will know it has made a start if it enforces new standards in several areas.

Currently, for example, former members of Congress, including those who are now lobbyists, have floor privileges in the Capitol, which gives them access to decision-makers the rest of us will never have, which easily leads to abuses. The fix is simple: Once you’re out of Congress, your membership to the floor and other protected places promptly expires.

The way members of Congress most help a lobbyist is to slip a provision for spending (called an earmark) or policy in a bill without debate. Earmarks are what Sen. John McCain annually rails against and many, but not all, are truly egregious. But if all these measures had to be considered publicly by the committee with jurisdiction and no provisions were allowed to be added to legislation once the House and Senate start negotiating on it, they would either stand up to scrutiny or die of embarrassment. Similarly, Collins says she’s interested in ending the practice of anonymous provisions – one senator can now silently hold up a bill indefinitely.

A related proposal in a House reform bill sponsored by Maine Rep. Tom Allen would require a waiting period of 24 hours before a bill could be voted on, time for someone to actually read the thing before Congress hands out rewards to its really good friends. Longer might be even better. (It is worth noting that rules already exist to curb several of these abuses, but they are enforced selectively, which may be as much a problem as the lack of standards.)

Most important is increasing disclosure – forcing lobbyists to report expenditures and some kinds of activities online, where they can be easily scrutinized. There’s nothing like the sunshine cast by political opponents to keep an organization honest. The press, naturally, could help out there too.

My own contribution to lobbying reforms is to suggest an 8 p.m. curfew – no congressional votes after that time, especially not on a school night when the rest of us are too busy to watch C-SPAN. That would prevent midnight trickery, keeping votes open for hours while arms are twisted and wearing down otherwise well-intentioned lawmakers. I say, Go home early, talk to your spouses, play with your children, read the bills you’ll be voting on, watch “Extreme Makeover,” if you like that sort of thing.

Just keep away from those nasty lobbyists.

Todd Benoit is the editorial page editor of the Bangor Daily News.