This is one of those periods when almost nothing “real” gets done on Capitol Hill. It’s an election year; we have a lame-duck president and a Congress run by the opposite party. The debates are filled with campaign posturing, and all the votes are electionA--year traps set up to ensnare the opposition into a “yea” or “nay” they’ll someday regret. So whatever is happening in Washington right now is meaningless. Right?

Look harder.

This week’s cover story, by health care writer Drew Armstrong, is an example of why it’s especially important to watch what Congress is doing behind the scenes when everything at the front of the stage looks so orchestrated. His story presents a road map of powerful Democrats’ thinking about an overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration.

The idea of remaking the FDA, which regulates the foods we eat, the drugs we take and the medical devices we use, has been around for years, even decades. It comes up during every food or drug crisis, but in recent years Congress has mostly just tinkered around the edges.

This time, though, the movement is fueled by deaths associated with the blood thinner heparin. And the main proponent is Michigan’s John D. Dingell , the dean of the House and a committee chairman who by now has learned a thing or two about how to use the ebbs and flows of the legislative cycle to his advantage.

He’s using this time to come up with the details of an overhaul plan and to make alliances with Republicans such as Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a longtime FDA critic. Dingell is also working with fellow Michigander Bart Stupak , the Democrat who now has Dingell’s old role chairing the Energy and Commerce Oversight Subcommittee. High-profile oversight investigations and hearings can go a long way toward building political support for a major overhaul like this.

This probably cannot happen in an election year. But by 2009, Dingell, who is almost certain to win re-election this fall to his 27th full term, will be able to introduce his FDA overhaul with phrases like “we’ve been working on this for more than a year” and “bipartisan.”

Drew’s story provides a clear sense of what he and his colleagues are thinking now, how they plan to execute it, and the arguments and resistance they will face from advocates of the status quo.

— Susan Benkelman, Executive Editor, sbenkelman@cq.com