Behold the swirling mass of intrigue, molded by deep-seated loyalties and driven by complex motivations. Of course, I'm talking 'bout the U.S. House of Reps. Pelosi's push this week to create a new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming was a fascinating peek into the inner-workings of the House and the relationships between the Speaker, Democratic leadership, and the rest of her caucus. Yep, the new panel lacks legislative jurisdiction, but is a platform for raising the profile of climate change. As to be expected, John Dingell -- chairman of the committee that loses ground in this new move and the representative from suburban Detroit -- found this whole reorganization business just simply unnecessary. For the record, though, he objects to the plan on the grounds that it undermines the idea that committees are supposed to serve as long-standing repositories of congressional expertise. Motivating Pelosi? The knowledge that Dingell isn't too keen on the idea that there is a scientific consensus on global warming; the Speaker seems to really want movement on climate change this Congress, and this move puts pressure all around to squeeze something out of the House in the near future.

But oh, there's so much more in this mix! For example: Dingell's chief of staff was a lobbyist and strategist at DaimlerChrysler as late as November. Dingell's wife is the executive director of government relations at GM. Dingell favored Hoyer over Pelosi in the Whip's race in 2001. Pelosi backed Dingell's primary challenger Lynne Rivers in 2002. One House chairman, Henry Waxman is of the opinion that "existing committees can deal effectively with global warming," but worth keeping in mind is that Waxman is next in line for the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee should the 81 year-old Dingell ever vacate the House.

Just in terms of structure, it's hard not to see this as an end run by Pelosi around the House's committee system and its chairmen. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of precedent for what she's done. (Of course, one might argue that there's not a whole lot of precedent for global warming.) The last "non-permanent select committee" was created by Republican leadership to blunt criticism after Hurricane Katrina. The one before that, Homeland Security, was created in the wake of September 11 and soon evolved into full standing committee. This new panel isn't as obviously event-driven and isn't yet designated permanent. Is the idea for it to be short-lived and for climate change and energy independence to revert back to Energy and Commerce when, say, Waxman pries the gavel out of Dingell's hands?

All in all, fascinating to watch Pelosi put her mark on the institution. She certainly doesn't seem to be afraid to shake things up, and we'll see what the caucus' tolerance is for being shaken.

A recap of the rapidly-evolving situation in the House of Representatives since Pelosi was elected Speaker at 1:43pm EST yesterday. Serious legislative action was kicked off with the consideration of H.Res. 6 (careful, pdf), the rules package that sets the operating principles for the 110th Congress. The measure breaks down into into five sections, to be passed one at a time through the body. Title II -- what you might see referred to as the ethics bill and aimed at severing the ties between lobbyist and lawmaker -- passed the House last night at 7:28, some five hours and 45 minutes (my math right?) after Pelosi's hand first wrapped around the gavel. The roll call vote on Title II was 430-1, with the lone "nay" coming from Indiana Representative Dan Burton -- which can only be taken as a sign of the wisdom of the measure, considering that while Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee Burton went out behind his house and shot a watermelon to prove a pet murder conspiracy theory.

The House recessed at 9:49 last night, picking up again at 9:30 this morning. Title III (on "civility" in the chamber, such as how long floor votes may be held open) passed at 12:46 this afternoon. Title IV (on fiscal responsibility, including earmark reform and pay-as-you-go requirements) passed 12 minutes later, at 12:58. The House then recessed at 6:46pm today, to begin anew Tuesday morning.

What's on deck in the House? From the website of Majority Whip Jim Clyburn -- what should prove a valuable resource for tracking goings-on there:

H.R. 1 :: Implementing 9/11 Commission's Recommendations (slated for January 9)
H.R. 2 :: Increase the Minimum Wage (January 10)
H.R. 3 :: Stem Cell Research Bill (January 11)
H.R. 4 :: Prescription Drug Negotiating Authority (January 12)

Scheduled for January 17 is legislation aimed at cutting student loan interest rates. For January 18, it's ending "Big Oil" subsidies and investing in renewable energy. Logic tells us that those will be H.R. 5 and 6. The Speaker has reserved up to H.R. 10, so perhaps there's more in store.

Of course, what's to become of these proposals if/when they leave the chamber remains the big question. One consideration is that the Senate certainly takes to heart its image as the more deliberative body, and moves more ploddingly than the House. And another is that Harry Reid is going to have a heck of a time wrangling the necessary support with his own caucus so few in numbers.

In an excellent post Tuesday,"Businessweek Shows What Wall Street Dems Mean By the 'Kabuki Dance" David Sirota wrote:

Last week, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) told the New York Times that the Democratic Party must engage in a "kabuki dance" to make it look like they are pushing a progressive agenda, while not really challenging entrenched power. But what does that mean in practice? We can look to a new <u>Businessweek</u&gt story for clues.

The post goes on to explain how while President, Bill Clinton supported a bill that purported to rein in  exorbitant pay packages for executives he was  simultaneously maneuvering behind the scenes to make so many loopholes in the law that it wouldn't matter anyway.

That's a good illustration of what I fear could happen if the public isn't engaged in the debate when Congress decides what to do about the deadly unaffordability of prescription drugs.

There's more...