Congresswoman Lois Frankel (D–Fla.) realizes there's a major partisan divide in Congress right now, but as the cochair of the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus, she wants the public to know things aren’t as bad as they could be.

“It’s not as though we’re in committee or on the floor in the House with boxing gloves out, hitting each other,” Frankel tells Glamour. “We talk nicely to one another. We like each other.”

These across-the-aisle friendships haven't necessarily resulted in collaborative legislation, but Frankel is still pushing hard on the issues she (and her Democratic colleagues) feel are critical for Americans today—particularly women’s issues like equal pay and family leave. Frankel was a college student in the 1960s, and the activism and outspokenness that defined that era have stayed with her throughout her 30-year career as a public servant.

Frankel served in Florida’s House of Representatives between 1987 and 1993 and again from 1995 to 2003 before becoming the mayor of West Palm Beach, an office she held from 2003 to 2011. Since 2013 Frankel has represented Southeastern Florida in the U.S. House of Representatives: first on behalf of the Twenty-second District and now—thanks to some recent redistricting—as a representative of the Twenty-first.

We caught up with the Florida congresswoman to talk about how she’s hoping to make things like pay equity and affordable child care a reality, why the federal government should step in when it comes to effecting change, and whether or not Ivanka Trump and the administration have actually reached out to discuss family-friendly policies.

Glamour: First off, I know you're one of the cosponsors of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which has been introduced in Congress in some iteration for nearly 20 years but has yet to be passed. Can you tell me a little bit about the current status of the bill—what it specifically is calling for and where it stands in the legislative process?

Representative Lois Frankel: We have required under law for years that men and women get paid equal money for equal work. But we’ve faced challenges enforcing that law. There is still a large wage gap, and there are numerous instances of women holding jobs where they are not compensated fairly. The Paycheck Fairness Act puts some more teeth into enforcing the law. Among other things, it will prohibit an employer from retaliating against a woman for discussing her salary with a coworker. Think about it: If you're in a job, how do you know how much you should be paid if you're not allowed to discuss your salary? That's obviously a roadblock. Women face another hindrance when they start out with low pay and are asked for salary history when starting a new job. They end up stuck with [below average pay]. The Paycheck Fairness Act will also ban history requirements during the hiring process. But candidly, while Republicans control Congress and Donald Trump is in the White House, I don't think any forward movement of this legislation is going to happen.

Glamour: Politicians on both sides have spoken about the need to give women more opportunities to advance in the workplace, but some argue that this does not call for more regulations or federal policy. What is your response to those who want to leave things like pay equity to the private sector?

LF: [There is common ground between parties] in terms of analysis regarding what the causes of pay discrimination are, but where I have serious disagreement is in the need and the ability of the federal government, as well as state governments, to make progress on the issue. The Paycheck Fairness Act is important, as are other avenues. We need a national family leave policy that will allow both men and women to take paid time off from work to care for a newborn or a sick relative. Another major issue facing families is the cost of child care. What happens to women, primarily, is that their careers are interrupted—taking care of their child is too costly for them to stay at work. Women may leave their careers and the effect that has on their salaries catches up: It catches up when they go to get another job, and it catches up at the end of their careers when their lower salaries have cost them a higher Social Security check. If the federal government could move forward with some of these major family- and work-friendly pieces of legislation, it would go a long way.

Glamour: What other family-friendly legislation would you like to see advance in the House?

LF: There's a bill called the FAMILY Act, which would provide workers with up to 12 weeks of partial income when they take time off for their own serious health condition, including pregnancy, or for a serious health condition of a child, a spouse, a parent, or a partner. It would allow workers to take home 66 percent of their monthly earnings up to a capped amount for high-wage earners. And it would be paid through a fund established by a 0.2 percent employee-employer payroll contribution.

I would also like to advance the Child CARE Act, which would put more money into the Child Development and Care Fund. The time when a child is between three and five years old is the greatest period for [cognitive development]. It's important that all children, regardless of their income, are in a high-quality child care or early learning environment because it prepares them for kindergarten and first and second grade. Researchers will tell you that having a high-quality, nurturing child care environment really makes a difference. But for many families, the time when they have young children is also the time they have their least amount of income—and child care has become very unaffordable. And because we don't pay our child care workers enough, we also have frequent turnover rather than skilled, consistent workers. One of the best things we can do for our country, for advancing our children, is to upgrade our child care system.

Glamour: I want to talk to you briefly Ivanka Trump and how she’s been a strong presence in her father's administration, particularly in advocating for women’s issues. Affordable child care was one of Donald Trump's promised goals for his first 100 days, and earlier reports said Ivanka had plans to speak with members of Congress about potential policy. I'm curious—has she reached out to you at all?

LF: Early on when Donald Trump was first elected, he had a conversation—or, I should say, Ivanka Trump had a very short conversation with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) and indicated that she would be reaching out to us. She has not. [Editor’s note: A spokeswoman from Pelosi’s office confirmed toGlamour that she had spoken to Ivanka Trump shortly after the election and urged Ms. Trump to speak or meet with Frankel and other Democrats in Congress; Pelosi has not heard anything further from the administration. A senior administration official told Glamour that the White House and Ivanka Trump have made outreach efforts to members of Congress and to bipartisan groups.]

Glamour: One of the criticisms of Ms. Trump's plan is that it would not adequately support low-income families and women who need assistance with child care the most. Would you support her proposal if it did become a bill and was being voted on in the House?

LF: I will support a good plan that will help the average American family get access to child care. I am not on board with supporting a plan that helps a very small percentage of wealthy Americans. That would be a step backward. The cost of child care is very expensive now, and the reported tax deduction plan is flawed. I would hope that if the administration comes forward with a plan that it is much more extensive than what has been described. We would be happy to give Ivanka any advice she needs.

Glamour: You're cochair of the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus—how do you and your fellow Republican colleagues work to bridge the partisan divide? Are there any specific issues or pieces of legislation that you've worked together on to bring together some sort of joint resolution?

LF: I will say this: It’s a challenge. We do like each other, and there are issues we agree upon. But in my experience politics can make it difficult to move forward with bipartisan efforts.

One of the recent measures is legislation to combat abuse in the gymnastics world. I’ve sponsored a bill with my cochair Susan Brooks (R–Ind.) on the Bipartisan Congressional Women’s Caucus called the Protecting Young Athletes From Sexual Abuse Act. It would, among other things, expand the mandatory abuse requirements to national governing sports bodies and make sure reports are immediately made to local law enforcement authorities. It also requires national governing bodies like USA Gymnastics to develop specific policies and procedures to combat abuse. We’ve worked together on trafficking issues. We’ve zeroed in on the Marines United scandal involving the nonconsensual posting of nude photos of female marines. The Democratic Working Women’s Group held a hearing on that a couple weeks ago, and we heard from some of the victims. Rep. Martha McSally (R–Ariz.) has filed a bill to address that, which will make it illegal to distribute intimate images of a person if they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. I’m sure it will get a lot of bipartisan support. These are just a few recent examples; it’s not totally a desert out there.

Glamour: To shift gears, I know you've been witness to some truly fiery town halls, and many of your constituents have voiced anger and frustration with the direction the new administration is taking. What are the biggest issues that are weighing on District 21's mind right now?

LF: At the top of the list are women’s issues. There is tremendous fear about defunding Planned Parenthood, restricting legal abortion, and restricting access to contraception—plus lingering anger about Donald Trump’s general attitude toward women during the campaign. Where I am, people are upset about the time he’s spending away from Washington right here in our district [at Mar-a-Lago]. It’s disruptive, and it’s costing businesses a lot of money. I would also say the Russian interference with our election and the potential connection of the Trump campaign to Russia is a moving issue that is not going to go away until somebody gets to the bottom of it.

People are anxious. I’ve been in public office for a long time, and I have never seen such sustained agitation. It used to be that you’d go to town halls and community meetings and five or six people would be sleeping. People are not sleeping anymore.

Glamour: As one final note—you just returned from a trip to Japan and South Korea, and it comes right on the heels of Vice President Pence calling for the U.S. to "abandon the failed policy of strategic patience" regarding North Korea. Since you were there as part of a bipartisan fact-finding trip, what are your thoughts on the rhetoric being used by the administration? What kind of message is it sending those on the Korean peninsula—both North and South—and do you think this is this the correct approach to take to the situation?

LF: I learned a lot on this trip. Not only did we have important site visits to military bases; we met with the Prime Minister of Japan and the Foreign Minister of South Korea. It was a bipartisan group and we spent hours and hours in roundtable discussions with scholars, military leaders, and former public leaders from China, Japan, the U.S., South Korea. There is no easy answer to the danger that North Korea is posing. There was nothing that I learned that would lead me to believe that any military action on our part at this time would be any benefit to anyone. I would like to see the rhetoric reduced. The emphasis needs to be on economic sanctions and diplomacy. The president is correct in understanding that China can play a key role.

We must engage with China to try and put as much pressure on North Korea as possible. I don’t want to say it’s an impossible problem, but it is close to one. There are so many moving parts and there are so many complexities; I think it’s hard to understand when the problem seems so far away. Any wrong move on our part could mean devastation. To the President I would say it’s more complex than a tweet—it’s more than saying the North Korean leader must behave. It requires the best minds in consultation with our allies in Japan and South Korea to come up with approaches that will protect us. Right now we can’t have a shootout. It’s not going to work. I’m not a military expert, but what I gleaned from those I met with was that there is not a military action that could be taken now that would be at all satisfactory.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.