It was one of those classic Washington moments that make people outside the Beltway drop their jaws.

There was Sen. Trent Lott, the former Senate majority leader, chatting with reporters this year about proposals floating around Congress to toughen rules on lobbyists.

Some of the ideas he was hearing, the Mississippi Republican complained, were “outrageous.” Like the one that would prohibit lobbyists from treating politicians to meals that cost more than $20 – less than half the current $50 limit.

“Now we’re going to say you can’t have a meal for more than 20 bucks?” Lott exclaimed. “Where are you going? To McDonald’s?”

To people outside Washington, Lott’s comment was yet another illustration of what a strange world members of Congress live in – a world where $20 can’t buy a politician a decent meal.

Strangely enough, though, Lott had a point. Take a walk near the U.S. Capitol or the White House, and it can be hard indeed to find a full-service restaurant that serves a salad, an entree and a nonalcoholic beverage for $20, including tip.

Which might help explain why Lott and the rest of his Senate colleagues voted unanimously last week for an even tougher proposal than the one he ridiculed earlier – an amendment that would prohibit lobbyists from buying any meals for members of Congress or their aides, no matter what the cost.

Stung by the Jack Abramoff scandal, members of the Senate apparently concluded that it makes more sense to get rid of the perception that lobbyists are buying them off with fancy meals than to start hunting for places to eat for less than $20.

It’s too early to tell whether the ban on meals will become law, because neither the Senate nor the House has adopted a final version of a lobbying bill, yet.

And there’s no guarantee, if it does become law, that lobbyists won’t find a way around it.

Still, the ban has its merits. For one thing, simply by shining a light on the true cost of meals in the rarefied world of official Washington, it already has helped expose just how insidious the culture of freebies can be.

Americans who haven’t visited the nation’s capital lately might be taken aback to see how high restaurant prices are in the neighborhoods where senators and representatives work. They might wonder who can afford to eat at such restaurants.

The answer: People on expense accounts, a substantial chunk of whom are lawyers and lobbyists who routinely wine and dine the people they’re trying to influence.

For a taste of the dining choices available near the Capitol, an American sitting at home can take a look at the Web site for Washingtonian magazine, www.washingtonian.com, and begin by searching for Capitol Hill restaurants with “moderate” prices.

Members of Congress do have other options, of course. They can eat in their office buildings, where they have cafeterias, carryout places, buffets and members-only dining rooms to choose from. And if the ban passes, they’re likely to do more of their dining there. They also might spend more time eating at home – which presumably would help their family lives.

They also are more likely to pay out of their own pockets when they do eat at restaurants, making it easier for them to relate to constituents who can’t afford to eat out as often as they’d like.

And eventually, if restaurants on Capitol Hill discover they can’t count on a steady flow of business from lobbyists, maybe they’ll adjust their menus and prices to appeal to the hordes of hungry tourists from across America who regularly pay visits to the Capitol to see democracy in action.

High-end restaurants in Washington and their employees surely would suffer. But if some of the folks responsible for running up huge federal deficits with taxpayers’ money learn how it feels to actually have to pay for the things they order, that would not be a bad thing at all.