Now, EIGW (not as snappy as HELP!) is just the sort of ad-hoc-ery that those newly promoted in the regular hierarchy are bound to resent. It won't write legislation; but its agenda of hearings, the reports it issues, the statements of its chairman, can't help trenching on the preserves of regular committees.

Most particularly the Commerce Committee under the chairmanship of the gas-guzzler's friend, John Dingell.

Dingell was not, apparently, bosom buddies with Pelosi to start with: he went with Hoyer over Murtha for Maj Leader (though he was scarcely alone with that). And any thrust of policy towards curbs on energy that might affect the auto industry would certainly be unwelcome to him (but I'm not sure how far the leadership wants to go on that).

Setting up EIGW, however, seems perilously close to a deliberate poke in the eye.

If it were Dingell's hurt pride alone in question, it would not be so bad. But the EIGW proposal seems to have got senior Dem gums flapping all over.

From Conyers, for instance:

Tension between Pelosi and some of the Democratic chairmen is "palpable,'' said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat. "You can feel it.''

Very helpful - politically and linguistically!

The new committee will need endorsement on the House floor. The Dem #2 guy on Commerce is none other than Henry Waxman, who helpfully adds to the discussion:

Waxman [ ] said he would prefer that Pelosi let existing committees handle global warming and energy legislation, though he understands her desire to draw more attention to the issue. Waxman [ ] said he hasn't decided how he will vote when the full House considers whether to create the new panel.

Helping the Lioness with her whip count: that's what I call a team player.

Tipped for EIGW chairman is none other than Barney Frank, who

favors legislation requiring a 4 percent annual improvement in automobile fuel economy standards.

He's a graduate of the John Bolton School of Diplomacy:

Frank, 66, said he has no concerns about the six-year limits for chairmen and quipped that some of the "Old Bulls'' as a practical matter may never lose their gavels because of term limits.

"I have been very taken with the faith some of my older colleagues have in the quality of American medicine,'' Frank said.

Dingell, of course, is currently the oldest House chairman!

Of course, it may turn out to be a matter of one old guy's bruised ego - Waxman, for instance, has his own committee; ad hoc committees, lacking the regular structure of standing committees, are wont to drift off into insignficance.

On the other hand, the corporate supporters of the current lax energy regime won't mind a bit being able to console Dingell with three rousing choruses of You've Got a Friend in Me...

Update [2007-1-19 17:35:3 by skeptic06]:

The Globe gives a little extra background.

Dingell on the EIGW:

He told the Associated Press that the new committee would serve as little more than an excuse for members of Congress to take exotic trips.

"We should probably name it the Committee on World Travel and Junkets," Dingell said. "We're just empowering a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs to go around and make speeches and make commitments that will be very difficult to honor. . . . They're going to get under the feet of and interfere with those who are trying to do a decent job of legislating."

According to the piece,

The 60-year-old Markey has served with Dingell on the Energy and Commerce Committee for all of his 30-plus years in the House. He has been widely considered a protégé of the 80-year-old Dingell, who seldom breaks publicly with the chairman. Markey aides said the speaker approached him about taking on the new task.

Sounds positively Shakespearian: Prince Hal rejecting Falstaff - kinda.

More diplomacy from Frank:

The move to bypass some of her party's senior members sends a signal that Pelosi won't allow her committee chairmen to slow or stop her agenda on global warming or other issues, said [Frank].

"It's a message that personal feelings and jurisdictional disputes are not going to get in the way," Frank said.

Frank said creating a committee to handle global warming makes sense given the breadth of the issue and the potential for the existing committees to work at cross-purposes. He said his fellow chairmen should realize that they'll have plenty to do even if another committee handles climate change.

"I don't understand what their problem is," Frank said. "There's a mistaken view that 'this is my turf.' We're talking about public policy here. We're in this together."

I honestly don't think a chairman needs to be hypersensitive or to have an ego the size of the Brooklyn Bridge for this sort of statement to sound like a power grab by Pelosi.

A propos the ethics bill S1 which passed yesterday - and, in particular, the Vitter amendment SA 9 barring MCs' spouses from lobbying MCs (which was adopted by unanimous consent) - the piece points out that Dingell's

wife, Deborah, is a top lobbyist for General Motors.

The environmentalists are cock-a-hoop, and unafraid of pulling the old guy's beard (metaphorically):

"The chairman has for many years been strongly opposed to increases in [fuel-economy] standards, though there is pretty clearly a majority in the Democratic caucus who favor higher standards," said Philip E. Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust.

Clapp called it a "gutsy move" by Pelosi to try to overcome the "balkanized" committee process by putting Markey in charge of shepherding a vital policy area.

"You really have to have a central coordinating function," Clapp said. "It's very clear that Speaker Pelosi has made acting on global warming a top priority in the House."

Must be some fascinating pillow talk in the Dingell bedroom these days!

Another Old Bull moos:

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel of New York has expressed skepticism about Pelosi's idea but said he has not decided whether to support it.

Is it conceivably possible that she might lose the floor vote on setting up EIGW? Frankly, right now I'd say it was a snowball's chance in hell.

I wonder, though, what sort of a rule it'll be debated under? All sorts of mischief might be done by creative amendments.

But a closed rule would smack of desperation on the part of Pelosi and the leadership. And would invite a bipartisan protest vote on the motion to recommit, with a coalition of the spurned in the lead. (Harman and Hastings holding hands - yummy!)

Definitely one to keep an eye on.