More Paid Leave for More Americans Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to expand access to paid leave benefits nationwide by incentivizing state-level program development and fostering interstate coordination and standardization.
What it actually does
This bill establishes two primary programs: a competitive grant program for states to implement or enhance paid leave programs, and an Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (I-PLAN) to standardize and coordinate state paid leave policies. States can receive grants to cover startup costs, benefit payouts, and administrative expenses for programs that offer at least 6 weeks of paid leave for qualifying reasons, funded through a public-private partnership or employer self-administration. The I-PLAN aims to create a unified interstate agreement for policy and administrative standards, facilitating easier compliance for employers and benefit delivery for employees with work history across multiple states.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill addresses a critical need for paid family and medical leave, which is currently inaccessible to many American workers, particularly low-income individuals. They contend that a federal grant program will help states overcome initial financial hurdles in establishing robust paid leave systems, while the I-PLAN will reduce administrative burdens for multi-state employers and ensure seamless benefit portability for employees. Supporters highlight the bipartisan nature of the proposal as evidence of its broad appeal and potential to improve economic security and public health outcomes.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while paid leave is a worthy goal, this bill represents an overreach of federal authority into state-level policy and could lead to significant federal spending without clear long-term fiscal sustainability for state programs. They may raise concerns about the complexity of establishing and coordinating diverse state programs, the potential for increased administrative burdens on businesses, and the risk of fraud or misuse of funds. Critics might also suggest that a federal grant program could distort state priorities or create an uneven playing field among states.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the two distinct grant programs and the requirements for state participation and interstate coordination. The estimated reading time is appropriate for a thorough review.
Title I, Section 102(a)-(c)
State Paid Leave Public-Private Partnership Grant Program Establishment
This section directs the Secretary of Labor to create and manage a competitive grant program. States that have passed laws establishing eligible paid leave programs can apply for these grants. Priority is given to states without existing paid leave programs, those participating in the Interstate Paid Leave Action Network, and states serving low-income populations, among other criteria. The Secretary is prohibited from considering whether a state offers benefits beyond the minimum requirements when awarding grants.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this grant program is essential for catalyzing the creation of paid leave programs in states that currently lack them, providing crucial startup funds and technical assistance. The prioritization criteria ensure that federal resources are directed to areas of greatest need and to states committed to broader coordination efforts.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that this program could lead to federal overreach into state policy decisions and create a dependency on federal funding for programs that should be self-sustaining. They may also question the effectiveness of a competitive grant model in achieving universal access.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire to incentivize state action with the need to maintain state autonomy. It also seeks to direct funds to states with greater need while encouraging participation in a broader national network.
Title I, Section 102(d)(1)-(2)
Eligible State Paid Leave Program Requirements and Benefit Structure
To be eligible for grants, state paid leave programs must provide at least 6 weeks of paid leave for at least one qualifying reason (as defined by FMLA) within a 12-month period. They must establish a weekly maximum benefit of 150% of the state's average weekly wage and require a 'covered partnership' for administration. The benefit amount for eligible employees is tiered: 67% of average weekly earnings for those below the poverty line, a sliding scale down to 50% for those earning more than double the poverty line.
Title I, Section 102(e)
Permitted Uses of Grant Funds
States receiving grants can use the funds for a wide range of activities related to their paid leave programs. This includes startup costs, paying out benefits to eligible employees, funding the 'covered partnership' (public-private or employer self-administered), program design, purchasing software, obtaining technical assistance, and conducting outreach to employers and the public. Funds can also be used for research, program evaluations, and reducing administrative burdens on employers.
Title II, Section 202(a)-(b)
Interstate Paid Leave Action Network (I-PLAN) Establishment and Duties
This section establishes the I-PLAN, composed of 'State focals' from participating states, to support the development and adoption of an interstate agreement. The I-PLAN's purpose is to streamline benefit delivery, reduce administrative burden, and harmonize state programs. Its primary duty is to create a publicly available interstate agreement that establishes single policy standards (e.g., definitions for benefit day, eligibility, family members) and administrative standards (e.g., employer response to information requests, payroll contributions, coordination with other leave types). It also aims to create a process for coordinating benefits for individuals with work history across multiple participating states.
Title II, Section 203
National Intermediary to Support I-PLAN
This section authorizes the Secretary of Labor to award a grant to a single national nongovernmental workforce organization to act as a national intermediary for the I-PLAN. This intermediary will facilitate I-PLAN meetings, produce annual reports comparing state programs, conduct outreach to stakeholders (including employers, employees, and state legislatures), and develop a standardized, interoperable technology system for wage data. The intermediary's grant period is 5 years, subject to annual evaluation and compliance monitoring by the Secretary.
Title II, Section 204(a)-(b)
Conforming and Implementation Grants to States
This section establishes two types of grants for states participating in the I-PLAN. 'Conforming grants' are awarded annually to states that have a State focal and participate in the I-PLAN in good faith, ranging from $1.5 million to $8 million based on the state's employment level. 'Implementation grants' are also awarded annually, with similar amounts, to states that have entered into the I-PLAN Agreement. States can use these funds for administrative costs (customer service, staffing, technology, data sharing, program awareness) and to help small businesses afford payroll contributions or access technical assistance related to state paid leave. States become ineligible for implementation grants after 4 years if they fail to meet the I-PLAN Agreement requirements.
This section details the specific tiered formula for calculating weekly paid leave benefits. For eligible employees whose earnings are less than or equal to the poverty line for a 4-person household, the benefit is not less than 67% of their average weekly earnings. For those earning more than the poverty line but less than double, the percentage decreases on a sliding scale. For all other eligible employees, the benefit is 50% of average weekly earnings.
Title I, Section 102(d)(2)
Why it matters:The detailed benefit calculation is a technical but essential component of the program's design. Its placement is standard for legislative drafting, where general requirements are followed by specific operational details, rather than an attempt to obscure.
Case for: Proponents argue this tiered structure ensures that paid leave benefits are most impactful for low-income workers, who are often the least able to afford unpaid leave and face the greatest financial precarity. This progressive benefit design aligns with equity goals.
Case against: Opponents might argue that such a complex tiered system could be administratively burdensome for states and employers to implement and verify. They may also contend that a flat rate or a simpler structure would be more straightforward, even if less targeted.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly influences the financial support provided to millions of workers, particularly those in lower wage brackets, ensuring a higher wage replacement rate for those most in need.
This clause explicitly prohibits the Secretary of Labor from considering whether a State provides paid leave benefits in excess of the minimum requirements outlined in subsection (d) when deciding which States shall receive a grant under Title I.
Title I, Section 102(c)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is a technical legislative detail designed to prevent states from being penalized or rewarded for exceeding federal minimums, ensuring that the grant program focuses on establishing baseline access rather than dictating the full scope of state programs. Its placement is typical for such administrative rules.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision protects state autonomy, allowing states to innovate and offer more generous benefits without fear of losing federal grant eligibility. It ensures the federal program focuses on foundational support rather than imposing a ceiling on state ambition.
Case against: Critics might argue that by not considering more generous benefits, the grant program misses an opportunity to reward states that are already leading in paid leave provision or to incentivize higher standards. It could be seen as a missed chance to leverage federal funds for broader impact.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures that states are not disincentivized from offering more comprehensive paid leave programs than the federal minimums, potentially leading to a greater diversity of state programs.
This section defines 'covered partnership' as either a partnership between a State and at least one private entity that handles integral functions of the paid leave program (like benefit application or payment), OR, for certain states, the State and every employer covered by the paid leave program. The latter applies if the state program allows employers to self-administer benefits, provided they meet or exceed state requirements and cover all eligible employees.
Title I, Section 101(2)
Why it matters:Definitions are typically placed at the beginning of a title or act. The detailed nature of this definition is necessary to provide clarity on the acceptable models for state paid leave programs, rather than an attempt to obscure its meaning.
Case for: Proponents argue that this flexible definition accommodates different state approaches to paid leave administration, including models that leverage private sector expertise or allow for employer self-administration. This flexibility can encourage more states to participate by allowing them to adapt the program to their existing regulatory and business environments.
Case against: Critics might argue that allowing employer self-administration could lead to inconsistencies in benefit delivery or enforcement across a state, potentially creating a less equitable system compared to a fully state-administered program. They might also raise concerns about oversight challenges for self-administered plans.
Estimated impact: This definition shapes the fundamental administrative structure of state paid leave programs, influencing how benefits are delivered and managed across potentially millions of employers and employees.