Joe Sestak on Families & Children
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:
Rep. STEVE LYNCH (D, MA-9): This bill takes an important step toward improving the Federal Government's ability to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce by providing paid parental leave to Federal and Congressional employees for the birth, adoption or placement of a child for foster care, which is a benefit that is extended to many in the private sector in other industrialized countries.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. DARRELL ISSA (R, CA-49): This bill sends the wrong message at the wrong time to working American taxpayers and families that are struggling in difficult times. Our economy is in crisis, and deficits are already soaring. This bill does not have one provision to say if you make $170,000 a year, why do we have to give you this benefit, because you have to choose between feeding your children and being with your children? Certainly not. There are no protections against, in fact, those who do not need this special benefit getting it. There are no safeguards at all. As a matter of fact, this bill envisions the $1 billion over 5 years, swelling to $4 billion over 10 years or more because, in fact, they believe it should be 8 weeks of special leave. Federal employees enjoy one of the highest levels of job security, without a doubt, anywhere in the United States. I would venture to say many of them the highest. More importantly, in good times and bad, they keep their jobs.
The White House Conference on Children and Youth in 2010 Act - Directs the President to call a White House Conference on Children and Youth in 2010 to: (1) encourage improvements in each state and local child welfare system; and (2) develop recommendations for actions to implement express policy regarding federal, state, and local programs. The Congress finds the following:
Authorizes grants to states for sex education programs, including education on abstinence and contraception, to prevent teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Expresses the sense of Congress that states are encouraged, although not required, to provide matching funds to receive such grants.
Requires the Secretary to provide for a national evaluation of a representative sample of such programs for effectiveness in delaying the initiation of sexual intercourse and other high-risk behaviors, preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, and increasing contraceptive knowledge and behavior. Requires states receiving such grants to provide for an individual evaluation of the state's program by an external, independent entity.
|Other candidates on Families & Children:||Joe Sestak on other issues:|
Retiring in 2014 election:
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
Senate races Nov. 2016:
AK: Murkowski(R) vs.Begich(D)
AL: Shelby(R) vs.Bright(D)
AR: Boozman(R) vs.Beebe(D)
AZ: McCain(R) vs.Ward(R) vs.Kirkpatrick(D) vs.Mealer(I)
CA: Sanchez(D) vs.Harris(D) vs.Chavez(R)
CO: Bennet(D) vs.Glenn(R)
CT: Blumenthal(D) vs.Foley(R)
FL: Jolly(R) vs.DeSantis(R) vs.Keith(D) vs.Cantera(R)
GA: Isakson(R) vs.Nunn(D) vs.Barrow(D) vs.Grayson(R)
HI: Schatz(D) vs.Hanabusa(D)
IA: Grassley(R) vs.Clovis(D)
ID: Crapo(R) vs.
IN: Stutzman(R) vs.Hill(D) vs.Holcomb(R) vs.Bosma(R) vs.Young(R)
KS: Moran(R) vs.Orman(I) vs.Sebelius(D)
KY: Paul(R) vs.Conway(D) vs.Chandler(D)
MD: Edwards(D) vs.Van Hollen(D) vs.Ehrlich(R) vs.Steele(R)
MO: Blunt(R) vs.Kander(D)
NC: Burr(R) vs.Hagan(D) vs.McIntyre(D) vs.Miller(D) vs.Shuler(D)
NH: Ayotte(R) vs.Shea-Porter(D)
NV: Cortez-Masto(D) vs.Heck(R) vs.
NY: Schumer(D) vs.King(R) vs.Gibson(R)
OK: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D)
PA: Toomey(R) vs.Stern(R) vs.Sestak(D) vs.McGinty(D)
SD: Thune(R) vs.Herseth-Sandlin(D)
UT: Lee(R) vs.Matheson(D)
WA: Murray(D) vs.Reichert(R)
WI: Johnson(R) vs.Feingold(D)
Senate Votes (analysis)
Longworth HOB 1022, Washington, DC 20515