Despite the fact that Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and others have tried to encourage all GOPers to refuse to approve a spending plan that doesn’t have certain social riders, such as the amendment to defund Planned Parenthood, the bill passed with 55 House Republicans voting against and 85 Democrats voting for it.

Anti-abortion rights group Family Research Council released a statement praising the Republicans who voted against today’s continuing resolution. Of the vote, FRC President Tony Perkins said:

“We thank Representatives Mike Pence, Jim Jordan and their colleagues who refused to vote for a spending bill that continues to use taxpayer dollars to directly pay for abortions in Washington, D.C. and continues to fund scandal-plagued Planned Parenthood. The time to bring our fiscal house in order is now, and ending the federal gravy train for Planned Parenthood and other Left-wing groups is the first step to show that this Congress is serious about doing so.”

According to Roll Call, Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) is among the Republican contingency that believes the term earmark needs to be clarified. Yet the GOP’s House leadership seems set on the ban that was decided in November in a closed-door conference voice vote.

GOP leaders are suggesting the Conference as a whole doesn’t want to revisit the issue. Spokesmen for Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) both said Monday that the ban is settled.

“The House Republican Conference has adopted an earmark moratorium. Period,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Still, several GOP appropriators echoed LaTourette’s sentiment that lawmakers needed a clearer sense of what is included in the ban before they move forward on legislation that funds water, roads and infrastructure projects.

“If Congress wants to use its Constitutional authority to direct spending, then we do need to discuss where that authority can be reclaimed and where it [can’t],” said Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who has long been in favor of addressing the earmark issue.

Kingston, who introduced banning legislation in 2007, said the Army Corps of Engineers’ projects was one area for which Congress should appropriate funding, according to Roll Call.

On the Senate side, Bloomberg reported that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S. C.) is pushing to deepen Charleston Harbor in South Carolina and is worried an earmark ban could affect funding for that project.

This is how the Office of Management and Budget defined an earmark back in 2007, when earmark-banning legislation was first introduced:

Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

In December, Politico’s Mike Allen succinctly described the predicament for Republicans that want to “redefine” earmarking:

“[This report] is long overdue,” said Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser and chairwoman of the White House Council on Women and Girls. “We understand that the success of women and girls is vital to winning the future.”

The report, titled Women in America: Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being (PDF), is a collaborative effort of several federal departments prepared for the White House Council on Women and Girls. None of the data revealed in the report is new — and the most recently reported statistics are from 2009 or 2006 — but it is the first time such a report has been drafted since President John F. Kennedy commissioned one in 1963.

A lot of the information in the report is old news — for instance, women are still trailing men in economic earnings: At all education levels women earned 75 percent of what men make in 2009. But the report does add some interesting perspectives. For example, the jobs that women tend to go for and the majors they take in college, tend to be in humanities or social work, something Obama is hoping to change. Acting Deputy Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank said in a phone conference Tuesday that the president will be encouraging young women to pursue the fields of science, technology, engineering and math.

Women currently make up 51 percent of the population; there are about 4 million more females than males in this country. And 57 percent of Americans over 65 are women. But though women still exceed men in life expectancy, they are likely to face more health problems and physical ailments down the road, particularly in the regions of mobility, obesity and depression; though figures point to a higher prevalence of heart disease and diabetes in men (14 percent of men 18 and older, compared with 10 percent of women).

About a quarter of women have reported arthritis and hypertension, with those figures increasing as women become seniors. And though less-educated women have reported higher rates of hypertension than more-educated women, among men, hypertension is not associated with education levels.

The report finds that women exercise less than men. Only about 41 percent of 25-year-old women said they participated in the federally recommended amount of aerobic and muscle-strengthening exercises, compared with more than half of 25-year-old men. And of all women, only 15 percent reported exercising the recommended amount. In 2009, about 25 percent of women said they ate fruits and vegetables five or more times a day. Almost one out of seven adult women smoked cigarettes every day.

Amid all the statistical figures one statement really stands out in summarizing women’s health:

“Women are almost 40 percent more likely than men to report difficulty walking.”

And that’s difficulty walking a quarter of a mile, or three city blocks. Walking trouble can point to arthritis, heart disease, pulmonary conditions, neurological conditions, near-blindness and other sensory limitations, and can “affect an individual’s ability to fully take part in all aspects of life,” according to the report.

And then, of course, there are different levels of walking difficulty among women, depending upon education and race:

• Women who did not complete high school (23 percent) were twice as likely to report difficulty walking than women who have had at least some college (11 percent).
• Non-Hispanic black women (18 percent) were more likely to report difficulty walking than Non-Hispanic white women (12 percent) and Hispanic women (11 percent).

From 'Women in America,' source National Center for Health Statistics

And even if the information is already out there, here are some, perhaps, surprising findings:

• In any two-week period, 8 percent of women and girls report experiencing clinically significant depression, compared with 5 percent for men and boys.
• Women make up two-thirds of graduates in the fields of humanities, arts, education, health and welfare but one-quarter of the graduates in science and technology.
• During the most recent recession, the unemployment rate among women over 20 rose from 4.4 percent to 7.7 percent; for men the unemployment rose from 4.4 to 9.9 percent.
• About 7 percent of women are severely obese. But 14 percent of non-Hispanic black women are obese, compared with 7 percent of Hispanics and 6 percent of white women.
• In 2008, intimate partners were responsible for 26 percent of all violence against women, compared with 5 percent of all violence against men. Of all Americans killed by an intimate partner, 70 percent were female, a percentage unchanged since 1993.
• The rate of rape against females over 12 (as defined by the National Crime Victimization Survey, which notes that between 2004 and 2008, police were not notified of nearly half of all rapes) declined by 60 percent between 1993 and 2000 and has remained at this level throughout the past decade.
• While male students are more likely to be victimized with weapons, female students are twice as likely to be electronically bullied as males.
• The number of women committing crimes is growing: Women made up 18 percent of all arrestees for violent felony offenses in 2008, up from 11 percent in 1990. The amount of women arrested for burglary or larceny grew from 25 to 35 percent.
• About 206,000 adult women were incarcerated in state or federal prisons or local jails in 2008.
• The number of women under community supervision or parole increased by 121 percent between 1990 and 2008: 1.1 million adult women were under community supervision on probation or parole in 2008.
• Homicide victims among black women dropped from 2,300 in 1993 to 1,200 in 2008. But for white women the figure remained steady during this same period of time at 2,200.

Officials stressed the point of the report is to draw a complete story of the American Woman, piecing everything we know about her to improve her well-being.

So what will the Obama administration be doing with this data? Should Americans expect to see new legislation, or at the very least, more discussion of women’s issues after Women’s History Month has turned into National Poetry Month?

Asked directly, Jarrett said: “[This report] will be a tool to help inform our policies and programs. Given the financial challenges, it is important we help spend our money wisely. … This report gives data that will help support that.”

As evidence to the president’s commitment to improving the “quality of life for women and girls,” Jarrett pointed out that Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls. And look, they got a report — which Jarrett said the administration plans to help them “do more with less.”

What that means exactly remains to be seen, but Preeta Bansal, general counsel and senior policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, was slightly less vague. She said Obama has made a vow to enact policies that are evidenced-based, and the same goes for this information on women. She said he will be looking at how well existing programs targeted at women — in the areas of health, education, unemployment, and violence — are working.

According to the Washington Post, federal agencies are preparing, individually, to operate at reduced levels in the event of a government shutdown, which the Obama administration has said it is trying to avoid. Exactly which departments would be closed and which federal workers would be sent home has not been revealed.

But when a government “shuts down,” it doesn’t actually shut down completely — just those those services that are not considered to be “essential,” such as tours at the National Mall or getting rid of the animal poop at the National Zoo (which actually happened during the last government shutdowns in 1995 and early 1996, the Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe told Fox 5 Morning News).

Watch O’Keefe’s analysis of the situation on Fox 5 Morning News:

Temporary Spending Bill Needed To Avoid A Government Shutdown: MyFoxDC.com

“Essential” services, according to the Office of Management and Budget, are defined as those that are “essential to the national security or the safety of life and property”; provide for benefit payments and the performance of contract obligations; and provide essential activities that protect life and property, such as medical and emergency care, public health and safety, air traffic control, border surveillance, law enforcement and protection of federal prisons.

Per a Congressional Research Service report from November 1999, the five-day federal shutdown in November 2005 resulted in the furlough of about 800,000 federal employees. The 21-day shutdown from December to January 1996 resulted in approximately 284,000 furloughs, while another 475,000 federal employees continued to work “in a non-pay status,” meaning their federal health benefits continued.

Other consequences of the’05 shutdown, according to the report:

• New patients were not accepted into clinical research at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, and hotline calls concerning disease were not answered.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ceased disease surveillance.
• Toxic waste clean-up work ceased at 609 sites.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms experienced delays processing alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives applications.
• Work on more than 3,500 bankruptcy cases was suspended.
• Delinquent child-support cases were suspended.
• 368 National Park Service sites were closed.
• 200,000 U.S. applications for passports went unprocessed, as did 20,000-30,000 applications by foreigners for visas every day.
• All 13,500 Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs employees were furloughed.
• An estimated 25,000 American Indians did not receive timely payments of oil and gas royalties.

But the mail was delivered.

According to CNN Money.com, this time around, if the government shuts down, we could see hundreds of thousands of federal employees being furloughed, during which time they will not be paid, but should expect a retroactive payback sometime later, unlike federal contract workers. CNN Money points out that the longer the shutdown lasts, the more difficult it becomes for agencies to determine which workers are still essential.

Congress has stated its plans to discuss a short-term spending plan to prevent a shutdown. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats proposed to extend current stimulus-level appropriations for at least a month, meaning a suspension of President Obama’s additional proposed spending increases for the time being, according to FoxNews.com. Republican leaders are working on a counter-proposal that could be released today. According to the network, aides have suggested the counter-proposal will likely call for a short-term plan of two to three weeks, with pro-rated cuts from their original $61 billion cut proposal.

House Republicans posit that Democrats really want a shutdown, as a way of making the Republicans look weak and avoiding budget cuts. And in a statement released today, House Speaker John Boehner said:

“The American people want Congress and President Obama to enact legislation that keeps the government running while cutting spending.  Heeding their will, the People’s House has passed such legislation; the Democratic-controlled Senate, by contrast, has not.  Americans understand we need to stop the spending binge in Washington to create a better environment for job creation.  So I ask Senator Reid, with all due respect: what are you willing to cut?

Instead of huddling with lobbyists to stop spending cuts, the Republican-led House has listened to the people and passed legislation to keep the government open through September while cutting spending.  If the Senate refuses to vote on this bill, the House next week will pass a shorter-term bill to keep the government open that also cuts spending.  We will give Senator Reid and his colleagues every opportunity to follow the will of the people we serve. Our goal is to cut spending to create a better environment for job creation – not to shut down the government.”

The Health and Human Services Department revoked the majority of the bill’s provisions but sustained federal protections for health care workers who object to performing abortions or sterilizations and the formal process for filing complaints.

President George W. Bush passed the “right of conscience” bill just before leaving office, opening up a well of possibilities for health care workers to deny care based on their views on things like homosexuality, abortion and birth control. For instance, this past November, when an Idaho pharmacist refused to supply medicine to a woman whose uterus was bleeding, because she thought the bleeding could have been caused by an abortion. In January, the Idaho-Press Tribune reported that the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest filed a letter of complaint with the Idaho Board of Pharmacy after the Nampa Walgreens pharmacist declined to fill the Methergine prescription by a nurse practitioner in Boise. The medicine is used to control uterine bleeding that can be the result of childbirth or an abortion. The pharmacist asked to know why the patient’s uterus was bleeding and hung up on the nurse when she refused to disclose to preserve the confidentiality of the patient.

HHS noted in a statement that it still supports provider conscience laws, especially regarding abortion. The department also announced a “new awareness initiative” through its Office for Civil Rights. The initiative will ensure that its grantees understand the statutory conscience protections and how to enforce them for those who claim their rights have been violated.

The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), has been added to the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1) to fund the federal government through September.

If the resolution goes into law, the 95-year-old health care provider will lose funding from the federal government, all of which goes to family planning and reproductive services under Title X, and none of which goes to funding abortions.

It will also eliminate the entire Title X program, which was founded in 1970 and is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and preventive health services, particularly to low-income families, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Office of Population Affairs. Preventative health services include breast and cervical cancer screenings, HIV prevention education, pregnancy diagnosis and counseling.

In fiscal year 2010, Congress appropriated approximately $317 million for family planning activities supported under Title X, 90 percent of which was used for clinical family planning services, according to the OPA. In 2008, 4,500 community-based clinics (including health departments, university health centers, faith-based organizations, public and private nonprofit agencies, and tribal organizations) received grants from Title X that went to approximately 5 million people, the OPA said. In roughly 75 percent of U.S. counties, at least one clinic receives Title X funds.

On its website all week, Planned Parenthood posted a message urging supporters to call their representatives to vote against attempts to end Title X funding.

A statement from the organization:

Anti-choice leaders in Congress are forcing a vote on the most dangerous legislative assault on women’s health and Planned Parenthood in our 95-year history. This bill would eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood health centers — including funding for birth control, cancer screenings, HIV testing, and more.

The consequences of this bill are clear — and they would be devastating. More women would have unintended pregnancies. Cancer would develop, undiagnosed, in countless women. There is no doubt: cutting off millions of women from care they have no other way to afford places them at risk of sickness and death.

There are 85 local Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, which operate more than 820 health centers, according to its website, which also indicates that more than 1.2 million youths and adults participate in Planned Parenthood educational programs every year.

As Pence told Politico earlier this week: “If Planned Parenthood wants to be involved in providing counseling services and HIV testing, they ought not be in the business of providing abortions. As long as they aspire to do that, I’ll be after them.”

Today, the fourth day, the house has been debating the 359-page spending bill. About 600 amendments have been filed on the spending bill.

Once the resolution is passed it will be sent to the Senate for consideration during the week of Feb. 28 and has been given a March 4 deadline.

Under federal law, any person can request information on the operation of the federal government. The law is called the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. The feds say the various departments process 600,000 FOIA requests a year, but Issa wants to make sure that the responses to those requests are done in a timely manner. Under his request, departments will have to turn over any communications with requesters whose requests have taken more than 45 days to process.

Here’s how a spokesperson for Issa classified the request:

“Our interest is not in the private citizens who make the requests,” said Kurt Bardella, a spokesman for Mr. Issa. “We are looking at government responses to these Freedom of Information requests and the only way to measure that is to tally all that information.”

But others worry about the broad request and the potential political impacts:

It “just seems sort of creepy that one person in the government could track who is looking into what and what kinds of questions they are asking,” said David Cuillier, a University of Arizona journalism professor and chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee at the Society of Professional Journalists. “It is an easy way to target people who he might think are up to no good.”

Issa’s spokesperson and Committee staff say there should be no concerns about the identities of persons being used improperly. They promise not to allow that to happen. But don’t plan on getting anything but a promise from the Committee on that issue. Congress is not covered by FOIA, so you will have to trust Issa et al, that they will be transparent on the use of the names.

Under the executive order, agencies were required to submit their own compliance plans. The administration has set a goal of “28 percent reduction by 2020 in direct greenhouse gas pollution, such as those from fuels and building energy use, and a 13 percent reduction by 2020 in indirect greenhouse gas pollution, such as those from employee commuting and landfill waste,” according to the White House.

The federal government is the largest energy consumer in the United States, and if these goals are met, the White House estimates that carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced by 101 million metric tons.

Here are the sustainability plans.

The report analyzes the historical scope of the current unemployment benefits extension, and argues for the value of the benefits for families and — especially — the many millions classified as long-term unemployed. It notes that in the past, Congress has extended benefits until the unemployment rate has dropped to 7.2 percent or lower. Economists do not project the jobless rate to fall that low until at least 2013.

House and Senate Democrats are currently mounting a push to re-up federally extended unemployment benefits for another three months or more. Republicans are proving recalcitrant, arguing they will not vote for bills that increase the deficit. Most unemployment extension bills cost around $35 billion — about one percent of the $3.6 trillion federal budget.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” Obama said. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

That ought to shut bin Laden up.