III. Case Study Implications: Opportunities and Challenges for National Paid Leave

This report is predicated on the notion that lessons learned from previous legislative efforts can inform future legislative campaigns. Below, we apply the key aspects of the analyses from each of the sections in Part II to a national effort to develop, pass and implement a comprehensive federal paid family and medical leave program. We intend for this part of the report to augment advocates' ongoing efforts to identify strategies for gaining and leveraging the support of key political actors both within and outside of government, shaping legislative tactics, utilizing legislative policy and political conditions and external focusing events and trends to their advantage, and developing policy frames that have the potential to help advance their legislative objectives and inoculate against attacks.

To maintain the utility of this analysis in the future, we have made every effort to apply conclusions generally while still accounting for some of the specific factors that face the paid leave movement in the current political climate. Some of the points below are obvious while others are more nuanced; in an effort to paint a complete picture for both seasoned and newer advocates, we have included both types of points in our analysis. Importantly, we approach this portion of the report from the perspective of advocates who prefer a comprehensive social insurance approach to paid family and medical leave.

Our case studies emphasize that advocates tend to be most successful in accomplishing their legislative objectives when they are able to see their priorities reflected in the priorities of key members of Congress, the president, and executive branch officials. Members of Congress, particularly those who have longstanding experience and expertise on an issue and hold seats on relevant committees or leadership positions, as well as administration officials who hold sway with the president, often play a central role in influencing both the scope of legislation and the compromises that become necessary along the way. Therefore, it is essential for advocates to build key policymaker relationships and to collaborate not only on policy objectives, but also on plans for obtaining broad and, when possible or required, bipartisan support as a proposal moves through the legislative process.

Organizations that have been advocating for paid family and medical leave for years have been cultivating relationships with members of Congress who have become ardent, passionate champions on this issue. Although bipartisanship has always been the goal, advocates have been most successful up to this point in securing strong support for comprehensive paid leave from Democrats. While newer moderate and conservative advocates have helped to pique the interest of some Republican lawmakers in increasing access to paid leave for parents of newborn or newly adopted children, there is a continuing need to gain Republican champions who support both a more comprehensive policy and new revenue to fund it.

As congressional outreach and engagement continues, our analyses illustrate the important role that congressional champions on both sides of the aisle often play in seeing a proposal from development and compromise to passage and implementation. Relationship building is important, as is the wisdom of knowing when and how to lean on established relationships. In some cases, advocates may need to intervene to ensure that early versions of a proposal are not unnecessarily moderate from the outset, as with the 2009 cap-and-trade effort and the FIRST STEP Act in the House, under the potentially misguided expectation that a more moderate proposal will have an easier path to passage. In other cases, advocates may find themselves needing to temper the efforts of congressional champions to avoid the creation of “Christmas tree” legislation, as in the case of the Medicare expansion legislation of the late 1980s. The overall guiding principle for advocates should be to ensure that they have strategic influence over the development of political and policy compromises with the goal of protecting the integrity of a proposal while also helping it to gain broader support.

Because of the role that committees play in shaping and moving legislation, cultivating congressional champions on relevant committees is particularly important. This makes it especially important that advocates become deeply familiar with the nuances of the positions, perspectives, pressures and counter-pressures of members who head each of the committees to which a comprehensive paid family and medical leave proposal (and related bills that affect paid leave policy) are assigned (primarily the Senate Committee on Finance, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, House Committee on Ways and Means, House Committee on Education and Labor, but also the House and Senate Budget and Appropriations committees, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee).

Especially over the past two years, House Ways and Means Committee members (especially its current chair Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA)) and House Education and Labor committee members (including its current chair Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)) – in close partnership with longtime House champion, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) – have dedicated committee time and resources to exploring proposals related to paid leave and expansions of unpaid leave. The House Oversight and Reform committee (chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently held a hearing on paid family and medical leave as well.¹

Advocates must work to ensure prioritization in the next Congress, including continuing House engagement, cultivating deeper engagement from leaders and members of the Senate committees with jurisdiction (working closely with lead Senate sponsor and longtime paid leave leader Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and building bipartisan bridges in both the House and the Senate. Advocates should also continue to identify openings to deeply engage other influential members on these and other key committees (for example, members who hold sway over other members, have had personal experiences that may make them open to such proposals, or have experience with paid leave legislation at the state level) and work to develop strong relationships with those who could be potential allies on this issue.

Our case studies illustrate how bipartisan committee alliances can hasten the development and success of innovative policy proposals. Thus far, Republican-sponsored paid leave bills are conceptually far from the comprehensive paid family and medical leave proposals endorsed by most progressive paid leave advocates and Democratic members. However, Republicans who have not yet endorsed comprehensive proposals could feasibly become proponents with demonstrations of consistent and widespread support from the public, business interests, and key policymakers. By investing in these relationships, advocates may find themselves having greater influence over the bipartisan negotiations that will eventually happen within committees.

At the same time, advocates should maintain a nuanced understanding of the objections of policymakers who may never become allies in order to prepare to counter their arguments for other members and in the media. Importantly, paid leave advocates should also seek to avoid a cap-and-trade-like situation in the House, where Rep. Waxman (D-CA) moved forward with an already-moderate proposal without a bipartisan partner in the hope that further negotiations could yield bipartisan support in the House and, eventually, in the Senate. That support never materialized, progressives did not rally around the bill at the grassroots level, and the effort did not succeed.

In addition to fostering enthusiasm for the development and passage of paid leave legislation among committee members, our case studies show that advocates can also serve as educators throughout the legislative process. Because committee members can affect the content of proposals early in the legislative process, it is particularly important that these individuals (both champions and tacit supporters) have a holistic understanding of how a successful national paid family and medical leave program would ideally look. By taking advantage of opportunities to educate committee members on the different components of their preferred proposal as early as possible and providing clear evidence to support its provisions, advocates will have a better chance of seeing their priorities included in the bill that eventually makes it to the floor.

It is important to recognize that information does not need to come from one source – in fact, advocacy organizations are well-positioned to connect legislative staff with other members of their professional and intellectual networks. By building bridges between committee leaders and those with relevant policy expertise, including scholars, state and local officials, and grassroots organizers, advocates can provide those who head or sit on the relevant committees with access to information and to experts who can speak to their concerns and support the development of a policy proposal. Paid leave advocates have already successfully connected some members of key committees with these types of stakeholders and should continue to do more deep work in this area, with special attention to connecting local advocates, health and economic experts and businesses with members of their congressional delegation.

These same kinds of efforts should be made to reach non-committee members who represent constituencies that stand to gain the most from paid family and medical leave legislation. Advocates might first look towards legislators who have relevant personal experiences (e.g., who have previously taken time off of work to care for a new child or to address a serious medical condition), who have expressed passion for a related cause or constituency (e.g., those who are seen as vocal representatives of children, older adults, or individuals with disabilities; those progressive and moderate members with a small business background), or who face electoral pressure to support progressive, family-oriented legislation. In other words, even members who do not hold positions of leadership on relevant committees may still prove to be influential allies. Conversely, conservative members who have been small business owners or who are seen as representatives of business interests have the potential to become outspoken opponents of paid family and medical leave proposals that place any costs on employers. Advocates may be well-served to reach out to these individuals with the goal of understanding their concerns. Gaining the support of such members (or even their neutrality) could prove instrumental in countering opponents’ claims about a proposal’s potential impact on business operations and costs and, eventually, smoothing a pathway to floor consideration.

Unsurprisingly, our case studies also illustrate the ways in which party leaders control the legislative agenda and act as spokespeople for their party’s legislative priorities. Securing the support of the majority party’s leadership and developing a plan to help party leaders to prioritize an issue is therefore crucial if a proposal is to get and stay on the policy agenda amidst other priorities. This is especially important if paid leave is folded into a larger package, as it was in the context of COVID-19 relief in early 2020. As trade-offs occur during intra- and inter-party negotiations, advocates must work to ensure that paid leave remains at the top of congressional leaders’ list of priorities and that the proposal they include reflects workers' and families' needs. Advocates should also be mindful of creating and taking advantage of conditions that can lead the minority party to not erect barriers to consideration or passage, such as a leader’s personal interest in an issue, broader political forces, and electoral considerations.

The importance of presidential support is another key theme across each of our case studies. The president’s endorsement of a proposal can signal that an issue should be a legislative priority, facilitate legislative negotiations, and amplify public support for a policy. The president can set the legislative agenda at key moments, such as in a State of the Union address, and assist with legislative passage both when their party controls Congress and when the other party holds a majority. Early presidential support alone is obviously not enough to guarantee legislative passage, though, even when the president's party controls Congress. Advocates should seek to encourage continued strategic engagement from the president and key presidential advisors to help promote the legislation and assist with cross-chamber negotiations, as presidential involvement often proves influential in a proposal’s ability to gain widespread legislative and public support. At the same time, advocates should be mindful of competing policy and political priorities within the administration and between the administration and Congress, and adjust their strategies accordingly; being prepared at all times to show administration officials the policy and political value of a proposal that is in development and to defend legislative strategies that are in motion is critical.

Finally, we find examples in our case studies of cabinet-level secretaries, the president's spouse, and senior advisors facilitating presidential, congressional, and public support for policy proposals. In general, advocates should be on the lookout for potential allies within the executive branch who may be able to amplify advocacy efforts by providing the administration with valuable expertise, lending their political popularity to a proposal, and acting as a liaison between the president and different advocacy groups, political actors within government and constituencies. Our analyses suggest that the targeted contributions of influencers within government can help to make an issue less partisan and more popular within the administration and outside of it, as well.

Our case studies show that individuals and organizations outside of government, including advocacy groups, can play an important role in the development, passage, and implementation of innovative policies. As advocates are well aware, their involvement starts long before the introduction of a proposal. Indeed, one of the key contributions that advocates can make to the legislative success of a policy idea is in helping to get the issue onto the policy agenda in the first place. Advocacy organizations are uniquely positioned to do this as representatives of significant demographic constituencies and as experts in public interest issues. By lifting up the demands of communities whose interests they seek to represent, advocates who are able to engage in electoral activities can signal to members of Congress that opposition to a proposal will have negative electoral implications. Advocates may be most effective in persuading members of Congress to support a paid family and medical leave policy by mobilizing the policymaker’s constituents – both individuals and business representatives – to speak with their elected officials about the specific benefits of the proposal and the meaningful effects that a national policy would have on their personal economic situation and well-being, as well as the harms and costs associated with the absence of such a policy.

As a caution, however, the passage and swift repeal of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act illustrates the risks of painting beneficiaries with a broad brush. Our analysis of the MCCA warns that the endorsement of a proposal among organizational leadership or by national-level organizations does not necessarily mean that grassroots organizations or members of the public will support a policy’s content or design. Advocates must take care to recognize that they “speak with” rather than “speak for” their communities; this is why education, outreach, engagement and mobilization are so important. National-level organizations should include grassroots activists in developing and executing lobbying plans, maintain open lines of communication with small or localized organizations to ensure aligned goals, and proactively resolve areas of policy concern at key negotiation points; otherwise, as with MCCA repeal, opposing groups may be able to use the discontent of a sympathetic and electorally-significant constituency to splinter a legislative coalition and negatively influence media coverage.

Related, we find that advocacy groups can often be most effective when they coordinate their political messaging and public outreach efforts with other advocacy groups. Choosing to unite behind a coalition name and policy-focused cause can amplify the voice of supporters and increase the perceived political salience of an issue. However, this means making intentional decisions about the costs and benefits of unified messaging campaigns. Coalitions that have one clear leader often have an advantage in making cohesive demands during policy debates, but efforts to speak with a single voice also run the risk of diluting the broad appeal of a message and sacrificing allies’ ability to pressure politicians from different angles. For example, while the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act’s tight coalition work and use of one primary spokesperson amplified the ability for advocates to pressure legislators, this approach may not be productive in all situations. Advocates should be mindful of the tradeoffs between efficient coalition efforts and the potential loss of airtime for other spokespeople who may be able to put a different face on an issue, appeal to a greater diversity of stakeholders, or reach a specific, targeted policymaker. Where paid leave is concerned, the wide range of paid leave's positive effects – promoting gender, racial, and economic justice, supporting the health and wellbeing of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ constituencies, and helping small businesses to compete with larger ones – argue for a more nuanced approach, where different communities that are part of a broad coalition take the lead in speaking at different times and to different audiences, but with unifying messages during all-hands-on-deck moments.

Once advocates coordinate the scope and content of messaging, they also need to pay close attention to the timing of their outreach and messaging efforts. Policymakers’ engagement may be less focused – and their enthusiasm for moving legislation may wane – if advocates wait too long to channel advocacy energy into the outreach and engagement of activists across the country that can help catalyze momentum. Delayed outreach efforts can also give opponents opportunities to mobilize activists to block legislative action, especially when opponents are better-financed industry groups with broad reach. The late development of the Clean Energy Works campaign and its subsequent inability to help manifest the bipartisan support needed to push the 2009 cap-and-trade effort over the finish line in the Senate is a reminder that the timing and intensity of messaging campaigns affects their ability to mobilize political support and catalyze political will. This is especially true when opponents’ mobilizing efforts are ongoing, as the Tea Party’s were in 2009 and 2010. Advocates should aim to start messaging and outreach campaigns early and to be mindful of opportunities for mobilization at the local, state and national levels, as such efforts may have the potential to assist with legislative success. They also need to be vigilant about opponents’ messaging campaigns and work to create counter-narratives in the media and on the ground.

The increasing importance of social media in mobilization and messaging campaigns should also not be understated. Advocate Margo Wootan’s catchy talking point that lawmakers were trying to “classify pizza as a vegetable” in their efforts to weaken certain aspects of the USDA’s proposed school nutrition rules during the rulemaking phase of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act's implementation made its way into late-night comedy shows and memes, but came relatively late in the game. Some argue that earlier popularization of this message could have helped shore up those members of Congress on whom food industry representatives such as the American Frozen Food Institute, National Potato Council, and Schwan Food Company leaned to undermine the implementation of the proposed rules (Confessore, 2014).

Along these lines, policymaker proponents of the FIRST STEP Act were successful at using social media channels like Twitter to put public pressure on opponents. For example, members of Congress and the president tweeted that Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell should bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. Following the completion of negotiations over the compromise bill, Senate Judiciary chair Sen. Chuck Grassley tweeted, “Ldr McConnell said he would need to have 60+ votes to bring criminal justice reform up & wanted to show large amount of Republican support. We have delivered. More than 1/2 of the Republican caucus supports the First Step Act LET’S VOTE!" (Grassley, 2018a). President Trump also tweeted, “Really good Criminal Justice Reform has a true shot at major bipartisan support. @senatemajldr Mitch McConnell and @SenSchumer have a real chance to do something so badly needed in our country. Already passed, with big vote, in House. Would be a major victory for ALL!" (Trump, 2018b). Advocates should encourage lawmakers to take advantage of these kinds of opportunities for social media outreach to advance their cause and influence their colleagues, where appropriate.

The composition of advocacy coalitions involving unusual partnerships and alliances is also important – and requires careful cost-benefit analyses. The value of forming left-right coalitions, in particular, should be considered within the context of the timing of a legislative effort. In several of the cases that we examined for this report, including the 2009 cap-and-trade effort, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and the FIRST STEP Act, advocacy coalitions were comprised of a diverse range of left-leaning and right-leaning groups.

In the case of child nutrition and criminal justice reform, we find that left-right outside coalitions enabled and supported the formation of bipartisan coalitions in Congress and propelled legislation forward. However, this strategy is not without risks, as the example of the 2009 cap-and-trade effort shows. There, introducing seemingly unlikely allies into the development of legislation early in the legislative process led to the creation of a moderate, incremental proposal that – in the absence of strategic, scaled-up investment in communications and progressive field advocacy – was unsuccessful in exciting progressive advocates and mobilizing grassroots activism. This case also shows how inviting industry groups to the table can enable for-profit entities to have a double-say in policymaking by giving them a platform to influence legislative content in negotiations with progressive advocates while they are simultaneously funding industry-side organizational congressional lobbying activities. Building left-right alliances early may have merit in creating a good-faith path to collaboration, but special care must be taken to avoid premature compromises and maintain the integrity of the proposal.

Industry groups presented a challenge for advocates of the FMLA and many play the same opposing role in campaigns for paid family and medical leave at the state and federal levels. Thus far, representatives of large and small businesses and representatives of the insurance industry have met with federal policymakers, submitted letters to key committees and to the Department of Labor, and made on-the-record comments to journalists that generally articulate principles and preferences against comprehensive, publicly-administered paid family and medical leave. Their investment in this position will likely ratchet up as legislation advances in order to protect elements of the status quo and to seek policy compromises that serve their future interests once a national program is in place. As the examples of the 2009 cap-and-trade effort and the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act suggest, industry groups can be effective opponents during the development stage (cap-and-trade) as well as during the implementation stage (HHFKA). In these cases and others, industry groups can play a powerful role in negotiations because they often have near-direct access to key political actors. They also have immense resources at their disposal that can be deployed to fund large-scale advertising and grassroots lobbying campaigns to influence public opinion.

Advocates should be prepared for some industry groups to fully oppose the development, passage, and implementation of paid leave legislation and for others to seek to substantially weaken comprehensive national paid leave proposals by advocating for opt-outs or special rules and by asking for federal preemption of state legislation. Advocates should determine their bottom lines and must be strategic about when, whether or even if to compromise with industry partners, particularly early in the legislative process when it is unclear whether compromises will yield bipartisan support. Advocacy groups should also be prepared for members of Congress whose states or districts are closely aligned with particular industries (e.g., in terms of the placement of a corporation’s headquarters, or the importance of a particular industry as an employer of their constituents) to oppose or soften their support for a proposal, even when the member had previously endorsed the idea.

To mitigate opponents' impact on legislators and on public narratives, advocates should continue to engage small and large businesses and supportive business organizations. The investments made in business organizing thus far have been very helpful in influencing hearings, media and more. Advocates can also look to state-level successes, where increased political pressure (in those cases provided by the threat of taking paid leave to voters through ballot initiatives) brought industry groups into constructive negotiations that resulted in strong state policies.

Our case studies showed that state and local government officials and associations may be influential in the content and design of national-level proposals that affect how state programs operate. Although the paid leave federal-state framework is different than the initiatives we studied, where issues revolved more around federal standards and federal funding for states and localities, the lessons still have relevance. Because a number of states currently have paid family and medical leave programs in place, state-level officials will likely have both concerns and contributions to bring to advocates and lawmakers who are working towards building a federal program. By bringing state-level political actors into federal policy conversations, advocates may be able to take advantage of best practices from the creation and implementation of similar programs in the states while addressing concerns that state or local officials raise.

Our legislative analyses also highlighted the role that celebrities and other outside influencers can play in the development and passage of new legislation. They include musicians (Bono for global HIV/AIDS legislation and Kanye West for criminal justice reform), media personalities (Kim Kardashian for criminal justice reform and Rachel Ray for child nutrition legislation), and athletes (Jim Brown for criminal justice reform) participating in legislative efforts. Celebrities seem to have been most influential when they were able to draw attention to an issue or policy proposal in such a way that they influenced and motivated the president. The identification of public figures as being aligned with an issue or cause may also mobilize public engagement, but the resources necessary to deploy celebrity engagement for this goal should be evaluated against other campaign needs. Advocates should also work to embed celebrity endorsers within the broader activities of larger messaging campaigns to ensure that the influence of such external influencers is efficiently harnessed to mobilize public engagement in the political and policy directions that advocates seek to go.

Researchers and research organizations are another potential resource highlighted in our case studies that advocates of paid family and medical leave legislation do and should continue to rely on. Most legislative fights involve a battle of numbers about the direct cost and revenue implications of a policy as well as costs and benefits that will flow to various individuals, entities and constituencies if the legislation is enacted. Although an obvious point, it merits emphasis: proponents should always seek to present positive cost-benefit analyses in terms of the proposal’s effect on the economy, public health, and quality of life, particularly when opponents seek to emphasize direct costs to taxpayers, employers and the federal government.

As advocates argue for the value of paid family and medical leave as an important, sustainable and net-positive investment, they must prepare to quantify and defend the costs and cost-savings of a program – and to anticipate and defend against opponents’ different (and likely higher) numbers. Advocates should also keep in mind that their own research can be misused by political actors who may simplify the findings of research to support their ideological preferences; this can result in scientific findings being stretched, misquoted, and misinterpreted in harmful ways. For example, the Republican National Committee's misuse of an MIT study estimating the cost of cap-and-trade legislation was effective in raising concerns about costs during the 2009 cap-and-trade legislative effort. Just as advocates must be prepared to incorporate data and the findings of published studies into their talking points, they should also be on the lookout for the ways in which research is being used or misused by political opponents and work to counter false or misleading narratives. In the paid leave context, program cost and state experiences with program utilization have already been taken out of context in congressional hearings; advocates should be prepared to preemptively and proactively refute opponents’ likely claims and defend against the continued misuse of data.

The content, timing, and strategic pathway of a proposal all affect its success through the legislative process. Although there is much that advocates and even bill champions cannot control, it is important to map out the intersections between the structure of a proposal and the legislative rules that govern its consideration; potential routes to advancing it through each chamber; and the timing with which it can move.

The idiosyncrasies of each case study make it somewhat difficult to cull applicable lessons, but several offer instructive suggestions about what advocates may want to do and avoid. Additionally, the considerations in this section will undoubtedly be affected by the types of external considerations and action-forcing events discussed in the next section (i.e., the spotlight on longstanding racial injustice, COVID-19 pandemic, and recovery efforts to overcome the effects of the current recession).

A. Timing Considerations

The common wisdom shared in advocacy circles is that a presidential reference to a proposal in the State of the Union is helpful in placing a bill on the legislative agenda, and that bills should be introduced early if they are to make it through to passage. Our case studies show that the former is likely more important than the latter. Several of our case studies suggest that presidential support for a policy idea can drive momentum and make an issue politically safer for certain legislators to support. For example, President George W. Bush’s decision to highlight the global HIV/AIDS crisis and to propose funding for a relief plan during his 2003 State of the Union pushed the issue to the top of the policy agenda and renewed Republican support for the idea. Likewise, President Ronald Reagan discussed his concerns over catastrophic health care costs and President Donald Trump asserted his support for prison reforms during State of the Union addresses. At the same time, our case studies suggest that the introduction of a bill in the first month or two of a Congress is not necessary for final passage. Three of the legislative efforts that eventually passed both chambers of Congress were introduced in May (Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act; Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act; and FIRST STEP Act) and one, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act, was introduced in November.

Beyond introduction, a key consideration related to timing is whether advocates want to move the bill as quickly as possible early in a Congress, near a recess, or hold it until later in a session. There may also be strategic considerations about moving the bill in the first session of a new Congress, in the second session prior to a congressional or presidential election, or during a lame duck period. As in the case of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, the start of a new Congress may allow members to use political momentum to pressure the president to follow the chamber’s lead. Conversely, the impending end of a Congress or legislative session may put pressure on the members of Congress themselves to see a bill passed, as in the case of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act and the FIRST Step Act. Of course, electoral motivations are likely to affect the decisions of individual politicians and make them more or less likely to publicly support legislation. At such time at which a paid family and medical leave proposal is moving through the legislative process, advocates should pay special attention to legislators in electorally competitive seats to better anticipate members who could turn out to be surprising opponents or unexpected allies.

B. Strategies for Movement in Each Chamber

One of the key take-aways from our analyses is the importance of recognizing the need to have independent strategies for both chambers of Congress, particularly for the Senate where the cloture process requires 60 votes. The 2009 cap-and-trade bill, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (The Leadership Act), and FIRST STEP Act each encountered notable challenges once they moved out of the House. The Leadership Act, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and the FIRST STEP Act successfully moved through the Senate only with concerted bipartisan leadership by senators who held gatekeeping powers and were able to use expedited procedures. For example, the HHFKA passed the Senate through unanimous consent, the Leadership Act’s successful passage came down to Senate leadership accepting the House bill, and gatekeepers in the Senate placed the contents of the FIRST STEP Act within another legislative vehicle to avoid procedural obstacles. In contrast, the hoped-for bipartisan support for the 2009 cap-and-trade effort in the Senate never materialized, making passage impossible.

In sum, advocates should not assume that that bills (even those that are popular) will pass through normal legislative processes, nor that passage in one chamber guarantees passage in the other. Supporters of a proposal should therefore be prepared to think strategically and creatively about possible legislative pathways in both chambers, including through the use of expedited procedural options, that may become necessary to overcome institutional roadblocks placed by opponents.

C. Bill Content, Cost, and the Politics of Compromise

Bill timing, the process used for advancing legislation, and legislative content are all related – and, of course, political conditions affect all three. It is difficult to draw conclusions about the path that a paid leave proposal should take based on our case studies because the context surrounding each piece of legislation is unique, but our analyses underscore how content and compromise can be moving targets. What is initially viewed as an unreasonable compromise may prove to be necessary given political realities, and what once seemed aspirational may become obtainable as conditions change.

In the case of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, anti-hunger advocates were eventually pressured to accept a cost offset that ended American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increases to Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) funding earlier than scheduled; the compromise was necessary because the impending end of the congressional session meant that Democrats would lose control of the House and their ability to bring the bill to a vote. On the other hand, advocates moderated their demands in the House only to encounter bipartisan resistance in the Senate in the case of the FIRST STEP Act. Although the decision to leave sentencing reform out of the House prison reform bill was made to attract Republican support in the House, prominent Republican senators ultimately demanded the inclusion of sentencing reform in the final legislation.

As advocates develop strategies for moving a paid family and medical leave proposal through Congress, they should confidentially and thoroughly discuss potential compromises early on for their own strategic purposes, and transparently evaluate with one another the terms and conditions under which those comprises would become acceptable. It is critical that legislative proponents take care to never freely give away (or allow other political actors, such as the president or freelancing legislators, to freely give away) concessions, but just as important that proponents regularly assess and respond to political conditions that may make compromises necessary.

Cost is another related feature of legislative deal-making. Congress may be less willing to pass a costly proposal in an election year than in an off-year, and concerns about costs may ultimately lead to policy changes that undercut a proposal’s popularity, as occurred with respect to Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act’s lopsided taxation scheme, or force trade-offs that were difficult for many advocates to reconcile like the cost offsets included in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.² Advocates for paid family and medical leave will need to contend with opposition to a proposed program’s cost and potentially to its financing mechanism. Care should be taken to both (1) strike an appropriate balance between keeping budgetary costs low and providing a meaningful, sustainable benefit to all, and (2) distribute the cost burden on taxpayers in a way that is seen as fair by those who contribute and benefit from the program.

Because a national paid family and medical leave policy will involve new outlays – ideally to fund a new social insurance program – lessons from the passage and subsequent repeal of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 are quite relevant. First, new social programs should be cautious about straying from the Social Security social insurance principle of universal contributions. Second, analyses of the MCCA’s repeal suggest that it is better to not frontload costs while delaying receipt of popular benefits. According to Diamond (2011) and Cohn (2010), the policymakers who later developed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) took great care to avoid this pitfall by providing new protections for insurance-seekers such as allowing adult children to stay on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26 and prohibiting discrimination based on preexisting conditions soon after the legislation’s enactment; the thought was that these enhanced benefits would make any insurance cost increases more palatable. Advocates of paid family and medical leave should similarly consider what kinds of popular benefits could be implemented immediately.

Although the kinds of contextual factors and focusing events described in this report are generally outside of advocates’ control, paid leave advocates can anticipate the effects that various external forces may have on their campaign and the trajectory of legislation. There are two key reasons to consider context carefully: First, knowing what kinds of conditions may be advantageous for passage can prepare advocates to leverage opportunities as they arise; second, having an awareness of potential obstacles may enable advocates to avoid certain pitfalls before various political or policy forces compromise a proposal’s chances. In other words, contextual forces and focusing events can often be harnessed – or their negative implications mitigated – with strategic preparation, flexibility and creativity.

In setting the stage for a robust paid family and medical leave legislative campaign in 2021, advocates should tie this policy goal to current trends, epidemics and crises, as many organizations fighting for paid leave, children, and gender and racial justice have already done. Doing so will increase the political saliency of a national paid leave program, while also framing the program as an urgent and necessary response to two current twin crises that must be dealt with in ways that are above partisan politics.

First, the Black Lives Matter movement-building project (started in 2013 by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi), spurred by continued killings of Black men and women by police and armed vigilantes – as well as nationwide protests growing through the summer of 2020 over racial injustice – have marked a renewed national reckoning with institutionalized anti-Black racism, particularly among white people (Black Lives Matter, 2020; McLaughlin, 2020). By highlighting the ways in which the lack of access to paid family and medical leave in the United States exacerbates racial inequalities and is particularly harmful to families and communities of color, advocates may be able to position paid leave within the scope of a comprehensive national approach to combatting these institutionalized injustices. The video released by Paid Leave for All showing Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Frederica Wilson (D-FL), Val Demings (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Lauren Underwood (D-IL) asking the Senate to consider meaningful paid family and medical leave as a part of the next COVID-19 relief package is an example of this principle in action.³ As this report goes to publication, comprehensive paid leave has also been included in a draft of the Movement for Black Lives BREATHE Act, a comprehensive proposal to divest public funds from discriminatory policing and invest in public safety, health, economic security and well-being (BREATHE Act, 2020).

Second, the human cost of the federal government’s chaotic and uncoordinated early response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Haffajee & Mello, 2020; Yamey & Jamison, 2020) – disproportionately borne by women, low-wage workers and Black, Indigenous, and other communities of color (Wen & Sadeghi, 2020) – has similarly underscored the importance of paid medical, family and sick leave in terms of protecting individuals, maintaining public health and safeguarding economic and job security. COVID-19 has shined a light on the inadequacies of current coverage in a profound way, with significant and devastating consequences. Indeed, Congress recognized this when it included time-limited national paid sick days and paid family leave related to COVID-19 through the end of 2020 as a part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). In presenting paid family and medical leave as a natural policy step in terms of protecting workers and families and also working towards addressing gender, racial and economic injustices, advocates may be able to channel collective public anger into action. Advocates can also lean into paid leave as a policy that can assist with testing, quarantine and treatment for COVID-19, for honoring families’ commitments to loved ones during uncertain times, and providing quality care to children while many schools and daycares are closed.⁴

At the same time, the recent pandemic has put enormous strain on workers’ and government budgets, which creates challenges for passing costly legislation that requires new federal investments. For example, the Great Recession of 2008 and its aftermath likely contributed to the demise of cap-and-trade legislation as concerns about climate change were subsumed by concerns about micro- and macro-economic conditions. Advocates should take care to acknowledge the challenges posed by the economic context and prepare for potential attacks related to the program’s estimated costs by emphasizing the wide-reaching magnitude of such a proposal’s potential benefits for the nation’s economic recovery and the costs of the status quo.

Advocates should also be on the lookout for changes in the broader domestic and international political climate that could help (or hurt) efforts to pass paid family and medical leave legislation. Beyond the potential for major partisan change in executive and congressional leadership in January 2021 that could dramatically affect the prospects of paid leave legislation, our case studies suggest the value of anticipating smaller but significant political dynamics that have nothing to do with a given policy issue but nonetheless affect legislative efforts. For example, perceived scandals may influence negotiations as they did when the Iran-Contra scandal contributed to President Reagan’s decision to support the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act or when the Russia investigation hurt Attorney General Sessions’ ability to sway President Trump’s position on criminal justice reform. In the context of working towards a national paid family and medical leave proposal, political actors whose position has been weakened by morally questionable or unpopular past actions could also be looking for opportunities to reestablish themselves as effective leaders and present potential opportunities for support.

International momentum in the form of upcoming summits, perhaps related to critical issues related to COVID-19, racial justice or gender equality, could also be used to influence the content of paid leave legislation or serve as an action-forcing event, although external momentum can also raise new concerns among opponents. On the one hand, President Bush’s decision to call on Congress to authorize funding for the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) before he attended the G-8 Summit that year was effective in putting pressure on both chambers of Congress to develop legislation quickly. However, the looming Copenhagen International Climate Summit may have made legislators less likely to support the 2009 cap-and-trade effort out of concern that it would prompt momentum for additional international emission-reduction obligations. Advocates of paid family and medical leave should look out for meetings of world leaders focused on gender, health, work, or aging and consider informal opportunities to mobilize international pressure (given that the United States is an outlier in not guaranteeing paid leave) that could help to push the United States forward while also being mindful of perceptions of undue influence over domestic affairs by foreign powers.

Finally, our case studies illustrate the ways in which the framing used by supporters and opponents can influence a legislation’s prospects. In this report, we discussed the use of narrative frames related to fiscal issues, values, and federalism. Many of the lessons from our analyses apply to paid leave efforts; several of these messaging frames are already in use.⁵ Advocates may be able to use some of the concepts identified in this report to attract broad-based support from various constituencies and from the holders of diverse ideological views and to prepare for the attacks likely to come from opponents.

As mentioned in the previous subsection, economic concerns and a hesitancy to raise taxes will likely be prominent in political discussions about the passage and implementation of paid leave. However, advocates may be able to look towards the approaches taken by those who wanted to raise school nutrition standards in 2010 and who framed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act’s costs in the context of other spending and the legislation’s benefits. For example, as Sen. Blanche Lincoln was advocating for her bill in the Senate, she highlighted that school meal rates had not been increased since 1973 (Bottemiller, 2010). The National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity (NANA) and other supporters of the legislation also countered cost concerns by highlighting research showing that states that had implemented new nutrition guidelines had not seen decreases in school revenue, suggesting that the perceived costs of the legislation were lower than opponents claimed (Schwartz & Wootan, 2019).

Paid leave advocates’ efforts to compare contributions to the price of a cup of coffee⁶ and to quantify the costs of the status quo⁷ align with this strategy, as do educational campaigns that seek to quantify the monetary benefits of paid leave in terms of child, family, and public health, workplace productivity, and economic growth as compared with the proposal’s cost, or its cost relative to the cost of other recent policies. As important as it is to monetize the proposed legislation’s benefits, though, the case of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act also serves as a reminder of the necessity of transparency. More specifically, it is critical that supporters not over-sell a policy by stating that it will confer benefits on certain groups or populations who, in fact, are unlikely to gain from the proposal. Rather than making broad claims about the societal benefits of paid leave, advocates may be better served by following the lead of HHFKA advocates in focusing in on the ways in which the policy would benefit particular people and groups. This could include the dissemination of personal stories from people who have benefitted from state-level policies or who would benefit from a national policy. Research and testimonies from state officials that point towards the solvency and sustainability of state-level programs is also likely to be helpful; some of these officials have already testified before Congress and submitted letters to the U.S. Department of Labor. Indeed, interviews with HHFKA advocates suggest that success stories from states that had implemented more stringent nutrition guidelines were more influential than data-focused research in swaying legislators (Schwartz & Wootan, 2019).

Paid family and medical leave advocates may also be able to make political headway by framing a proposal around certain values. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 was largely successful in presenting the legislation as being focused on protecting the welfare and health of a sympathetic and vulnerable population – children. A former administration official notes that NANA’s ability to keep children front and center in terms of messaging, rather than framing the issue around doctors, parents, politicians, or scholars, was key to the legislation’s successful passage (Interview with Former Obama Administration Official, 2019). Advocates shaped this framing by utilizing children-oriented talking points (e.g., “when parents release their parents into a school, parents should be able to trust that the school will keep their kids healthy”) and by incorporating creative and symbolic child-oriented messaging into their campaigns (e.g., holding events in cafeterias, dressing kids up in vegetable costumes).

For paid leave, there are similar opportunities to center messaging around the health and wellbeing of babies, children and older loved ones to build bipartisan support around a proposal. In the case of both the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act (The Leadership Act) and the FIRST STEP Act, many conservatives framed their support for the proposal around compassion, protecting the vulnerable, and redemption, linking these values to their identity as Christians. Advocates of paid family and medical leave may be able to utilize similar messaging in their outreach efforts. At the same time, advocates should also look out for the vilification of vulnerable populations through the use of negative stereotypes and racist tropes that could be used by opponents to frame proposals as unfair and beneficiaries as undeserving. In recent years, President Trump and others have resurrected language to describe those who rely on social benefits that is reminiscent of the racist, sexist, and classist “welfare queen” imagery painted by President Reagan and others in the 1970s and 1980s (Covert, 2019).

Although the use of personal stories from real constituents into messaging could help to counter the use of these kinds of stereotypes in negative messaging campaigns, the perception that paid leave is an individual employment benefit introduces a unique challenge for advocates. In order to overcome this individualistic thinking, advocates should seek to tie together a range of personal stories to illustrate that the lack of access to paid leave is a ubiquitous, societal problem rather than tied to an individual’s failure to select a “good” employer, negotiate a comprehensive employment package, or plan for personal crises or family care needs.

Federalism framing is also likely to be prominent in political conversations around a national paid family and medical leave proposal. Opponents of the legislation have previously framed it as an unnecessary expansion of federal authority and argued that the provision of paid leave should be left to individual employers or to state governments. Like advocates of the HHFKA did, there may be opportunities to correct this narrative by presenting the provision of paid family and medical leave as protecting young children and other vulnerable and beloved people and aligning the proposal’s benefits with science. As Bernstein (2001) writes in her analysis of family and medical leave legislation in the states, advocates are more likely to have success in presenting the policy as being related to “motherhood and apple pie issues instead of as regulations on business (p. 139).”

Advocates can also take advantage of the strategies employed by advocates of both the HHFKA and FIRST STEP Act in framing federal legislation as a natural next step to build upon successful state-level programs. This framing will, of course, be more likely to stick to a proposal that is designed with active engagement from local and state activists. Our case studies also touched on the challenges and opportunities that questions about federal preemption of state programs and laws may present. Preemption is already an issue that some large companies and business associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and the H.R. Policy Association have raised publicly in the media, before Congress and in comments to the U.S. Department of Labor. It is important for advocates and lawmakers to consider the experiences of previous legislative initiatives like cap-and-trade, where the inclusion of preemptive language was insufficient to generate hoped-for support in the legislative process and resulted in weaker proposals that disappointed activists. In the case of paid leave, federal preemption could mobilize opposition in states that have already enacted programs, especially among people who stand to lose more generous benefits if existing state programs are preempted.