Skip to content

Committee Assignments Are Determined By Using A Fingernail

House Republicans on Wednesday restructured the panel of representatives that select committee chairmen and members, removing at-large seats in favor of more regional slots. 

The move was the final piece of plan to restructure the Republican Steering Committee that the conference agreed to last November. The overhaul was part of Speaker Paul D. Ryan's promise to change GOP rules and procedures to give rank-and-file members more input. 

The steering committee in December will, among other things, decide the next chairmen of two of the most influential legislative panels on Capitol Hill, House Appropriations and Energy and Commerce.

When Republicans began the restructuring last year, they removed all but one Steering Committee seat set aside for committee chairmen and replaced those seats with six at-large seats. The plan was always to switch the at-large seats for six new regional slots this year in preparation for the 115th Congress. 

[GOP Moves Forward With Sweeping Steering Panel Changes]

Last year's changes included reducing the number of votes the speaker gets from five to four and adding a slot to be filled at the discretion of the speaker to address gaps in representation. 

The approval of the restructured committee came during a GOP conference meeting Wednesday afternoon. Republicans also debated and adopted conference rules for the 115th Congress, delaying a decision on whether to reinstate limited earmarks until early next year. 

[House GOP Postpones Decision on Whether to Restore Limited Earmarks]

The Steering Committee is comprised of 32 members, primarily leadership and the 18 regional representatives. The leadership slots are set since the House elected its leaders Tuesday. Other members will be elected after the Thanksgiving break.

[House GOP Elects Reps. Stivers, Collins, Smith to Leadership Team

Several of the larger states have their own regions, with Texas divided into two. States with fewer than two GOP members get to participate in their region's election, as well an election for a small state representative. 

There will also be two class representatives for members who arrived during the 114th and 115th sessions of Congress.

In addition to speaker's designee, there is a slot reserved for a rotating set of committee chairman. The chairmen get to sit on the Steering Committee when it is deciding which members to appoint to their panels. 

After the Steering Committee members are elected, the panel will sit in December to elect committee chairmen for the four panels where there are open slots: the Appropriations, Energy and Commerce, Veterans Affairs and Education and the Workforce Committees. 

[A Guide to House Leadership, Committee, Caucus Elections]

Every representative on the panel gets one vote, with exception of Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who gets four votes, and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who gets two votes. The total number of votes is 36. 

The other members of leadership who sit on the panel include are:

The regions and classes will meet after Thanksgiving to elect their representatives to the Steering Committee. The regions break down as follows:

  • Texas Region I;
  • Texas Region II;
  • Florida Region;
  • California Region;
  • Pennsylvania Region;
  • Ohio Region;
  • Region 1: New Jersey, New York and Maine;
  • Region 2: Kentucky, Maryland and Virginia;
  • Region 3: North Carolina and West Virginia;
  • Region 4: Georgia and South Carolina;
  • Region 5: Alabama and Tennessee;
  • Region 6: Illinois, Indiana and Iowa;
  • Region 7: Michigan and Wisconsin;
  • Region 8: Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Puerto Rico
  • Region 9: Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma;
  • Region 10: Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington and Wyoming;
  • Region 11: Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and American Samoa; and
  • Small State Region: Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Topics: congressional-affairshousekevin-mccarthyleadershippoliticsrepublicansrules-and-procedureAlabamaAlaskaAppropriationsArizonaArkansascaliforniaCampaignsCathy McMorris Rodgerscoloradocommittee chairmenDoug CollinsEducationElectionsEnergyFloridaGeorgiaGOPGreg WaldenHouseHouse RepublicansIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaJason SmithKansasKentuckyKevin McCarthyLouisianaLuke MesserMaineMarylandRepublican Steering CommitteeRepublicansSteering CommitteeICNW

1. Kanis J. Assessment of Osteoporosis at the Primary Health Care Level. Geneva: WHO; 2007.

2. Johnell O, Kanis JA. An estimate of the worldwide prevalence, mortality and disability associated with hip fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(11):897–902.[PubMed]

3. Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, Jonsson B, Oden A, Ogelsby AK. International variations in hip fracture probabilities: implications for risk assessment. J Bone Miner Res. 2002;17(7):1237–44.[PubMed]

4. Boonen S, Autier P, Barette M, Vanderschueren D, Lips P, Haentjens P. Functional outcome and quality of life following hip fracture in elderly women: a prospective controlled study. Osteoporos Int. 2004;15(2):87–94.[PubMed]

5. Kanis JA, McCloskey EV, Johansson H, Oden A, Melton LJ, Khaltaev N. A reference standard for the description of osteoporosis. Bone. 2008;42(3):467–75.[PubMed]

6. Cefalu CA. Is bone mineral density predictive of fracture risk reduction? Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(3):341–9.[PubMed]

7. Miller PD, Bonnick SL, Rosen CJ, et al. Clinical utility of bone mass measurements in adults: consensus of an international panel. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1996;25(6):361–72.[PubMed]

8. Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C. Predicting risk of osteoporotic fracture in men and women in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QFractureScores. BMJ. 2009;339(7733):b4229.[PMC free article][PubMed]

9. NICE . Natl Clin Guid Cent. London: 2012. Osteoporosis: fragility fracture risk. Short clin (August)

10. Lyons D. Fingernails in Osteoporosis. 2002. Personal Communication to the authors.

11. Bahreini M, Hosseinimakarem Z, Hassan Tavassoli S. A study of association between fingernail elements and osteoporosis by laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy. J Appl Phys. 2012;112:054701.

12. Vecht-Hart CM, Bode P, Trouerbach WT, Collette HJA. Calcium and magnesium in human toenails do not reflect bone mineral density. Clin Chim Acta. 1995;236(1):1–6.[PubMed]

13. Ohgitani S, Fujita T, Fujii Y, Hayashi C, Nishio H. Nail calcium and magnesium content in relation to age and bone mineral density. J Bone Miner Metab. 2005;23(4):318–22.[PubMed]

14. Pillay I, Lyons D, German MJ, et al. The use of fingernails as a means of assessing bone health: a pilot study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2005;14(4):339–44.[PubMed]

15. Towler MR, Wren A, Rushe N, Saunders J, Cummins NM, Jakeman PM. Raman spectroscopy of the human nail: a potential tool for evaluating bone health? J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18(5):759–63.[PubMed]

16. Cummins NM, Day JCC, Wren A, et al. Raman spectroscopy of fingernails: a novel tool for evaluation of bone quality? Spectroscopy. 2010;24(5):517–24.

17. Moran P, Towler MR, Chowdhury S, et al. Preliminary work on the development of a novel detection method for osteoporosis. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18(6):969–74.[PubMed]

18. Long DA. The Raman Effect: A Unified Treatment of the Theory of Raman Scattering by Molecules. 2002;8 Available at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Raman+Effect+A+Unified+Treatment+of+the+Theory+of+Raman+Scattering+by+Molecules#4\nhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Raman+effect:+a+unified+treatment+of+the.

19. Beattie JR, Pawlak AM, Boulton ME, et al. Multiplex analysis of age-related protein and lipid modifications in human Bruch’s membrane. FASEB J. 2010;24(12):4816–24.[PMC free article][PubMed]

20. Glenn JV, Beattie JR, Barrett L, et al. Confocal Raman microscopy can quantify advanced glycation end product (AGE) modifications in Bruch’s membrane leading to accurate, nondestructive prediction of ocular aging. FASEB J. 2007;21(13):3542–52.[PubMed]

21. Buckley K, Matousek P, Parker AW, Goodship AE. Raman spectroscopy reveals differences in collagen secondary structure which relate to the levels of mineralisation in bones that have evolved for different functions. J Raman Spectrosc. 2012;43(9):1237–43.

22. Branden CI, Tooze J. Introduction to Protein Structure. New York, NY: Garland Science; 1999.

23. Matousek P, Draper ERC, Goodship AE, Clark IP, Ronayne KL, Parker AW. Noninvasive Raman spectroscopy of human tissue in vivo. Appl Spectrosc. 2006;60(7):758–63.[PubMed]

24. WHO Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: report of a WHO study group [meeting held in Rome from 22 to 25 June 1992] 1994. [Accessed June 29, 2015]. p. 843. (Tech Rep Ser). Available at: http://apps.who.int//iris/handle/10665/39142.

25. Beattie JR. Optimising reproducibility in low quality signals without smoothing; an alternative paradigm for signal processing. J Raman Spectrosc. 2011;42(6):1419–27.

26. Beattie JR, McGarvey JJ. Estimation of signal backgrounds on multivariate loadings improves model generation in face of complex variation in backgrounds and constituents. J Raman Spectrosc. 2013;44(2):329–38.

27. Beattie JR, Glenn JV, Boulton ME, Stitt AW, McGarvey JJ. Effect of signal intensity normalization on the multivariate analysis of spectral data in complex “real-world” datasets. J Raman Spectrosc. 2009;40(4):429–35.

28. Palacký J, Mojzeš P, Bok J. SVD-based method for intensity normalization, background correction and solvent subtraction in Raman spectroscopy exploiting the properties of water stretching vibrations. J Raman Spectrosc. 2011;42(7):1528–39.

29. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2015. Available at: https://www.r-project.org/

30. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–45.[PubMed]

31. Tu AT. Raman Spectroscopy in Biology: Principles and Applications. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1982.

32. Spiro T. Biological Applications of Raman Spectroscopy. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1986.

33. Ott SM. When bone mass fails to predict bone failure. Calcif Tissue Int. 1993;53(S1):S7–13.[PubMed]

34. Bulleid NJ. Novel approach to study the initial events in the folding and assembly of procollagen. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 1996;7(5):667–72.

35. Bolander ME, Young MF, Fisher LW, Yamada Y, Termine JD. Osteonectin cDNA sequence reveals potential binding regions for calcium and hydroxyapatite and shows homologies with both a basement membrane protein (SPARC) and a serine proteinase inhibitor (ovomucoid) Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988;85(9):2919–23.[PMC free article][PubMed]

36. Baines M, Kredan MB, Davison A, et al. The association between cysteine, bone turnover, and low bone mass. Calcif Tissue Int. 2007;81(6):450–4.[PubMed]