From now until Election Day, The Brian Lehrer Show is hosting a series called “30 Issues in 30 Days.” The idea is to dive deep on one issue a day to give voters a sense of what candidates are saying about the policies that affect their lives. This week the series is looking at how Democrats would try to change policy if they won Congress. Today’s issue: Paid Family Leave.

Ivanka Trump made paid maternity leave her “thing” when her dad got elected, mandating early child care “should not be the luxury of a fortunate few.” Some observers portrayed her as a moderating force, equipped with the maternal power to soothe the often impulsive demands of her father. “[It’s] going to make a lot of people very happy, a lot of moms very happy,” the President cooed about his daughter’s plan. But two years into Trump’s presidency, paid federal family leave legislation has yet to be passed.

What is America’s family leave policy now?

Out of 193 countries in the United Nations, only a few do not have a national paid parental leave law: New Guinea, Suriname, a few South Pacific island nations and the United States. What the U.S. does offer is, well, very stingy. The Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in 1993 and it mandates that employers give eligible employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave to attend to pressing life matters, like a new baby or a sick relative. The issue is—well first, it’s unpaid—and it doesn’t even apply to all workers. A worker is only eligible for their no-pay time off if they’ve been an employee for over a year, and they have to work in a business with more than 50 employees.

Only three states—New Jersey, California, Rhode Island, and New York—currently offer paid family and medical leave. (New York started this year.

Why does the issue matter in November?

In many ways family leave is an issue whose time has come, and some form of it is likely to pass next year. What kind of family leave is passed, and how it’s paid for, comes down to the party in power. This year Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed the Republican version of the legislation, which Ivanka Trump endorsed. Contrary to Ivanka’s original proposal, which took money from state unemployment insurance, the Rubio plan would allow people to get parental leave by collecting early Social Security benefits. Later in life, those same people would have to delay the date they receive Social Security to offset the cost. This past summer, when asked about the plan, Ivanka Trump said she was “cautiously optimistic” and thought the plan could be passed after the midterm elections.

Democrats have their own version drafted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) Her version would not be limited to new parents, but would allow a worker to take paid time off for a number of reasons, like an illness or to take care of a dying parent. It would be financed through payroll taxes. “You buy into it like an earned benefit,” Senator Gillibrand told Brian Lehrer on Thursday, “and your employer matches that investment. It's .2 percent of your income and for New Yorkers that’s an average of about 2 dollars a week, a cup of coffee ”

Gillibrand does not agree with taking money from Social Security. “We should be strengthening Social Security, not cutting it,” Gillibrand said, adding that the Republican plan would “overwhelmingly” harm women. “Women tend to live longer. Social Security is not a great deal of money and if you have to draw it down early you might not have it when you need it, and it might mean you have to work longer.”

Gillibrand said she would not support the Republican model, and believes over the next year she can get bipartisan support on her plan. “I don't think the time has come to compromise. I think it's time to keep advocating for what would be a really vibrant, effective program.”

For more, listen to Brian Lehrer's segment on the issue here: