[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H7314-H7316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PLAIN WRITING ACT OF 2010
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in
the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 946) to enhance citizen access
to Government information and services by establishing that Government
documents issued to the public must be written clearly, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:
Senate amendments:
Amendments:
On page 2, line 17, strike ``relevant to'' and insert
``necessary for''.
On page 3, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert the
following:
(3) Plain writing.--The term ``plain writing'' means
writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows
other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and
intended audience.
On page 4, line 2, after ``website'' insert ``as required
under paragraph (2)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
General Leave
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLAY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 946, the Plain Writing Act of 2010, was introduced by
Representative Bruce Braley on February 10, 2009, and it passed the
House by an overwhelming margin on March 17, 2010. The Senate made
slight amendments to the bill and passed it by unanimous consent
earlier this week.
This is straightforward, good-government legislation. H.R. 946
requires agencies to use plain writing in government documents.
The organization, AARP, wrote a letter supporting this bill, and I
quote:
``The use of plain language in documents issued to the public will
save the Federal Government an enormous amount of time now spent
helping citizens understand the correspondence they receive.''
The changes made to the bill by the Senate are very minor, including
adding language clarifying that plain writing should be appropriate to
the subject or field and intended audience.
This bill will make the government more transparent and efficient,
and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Senate amendments
to H.R. 946.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in opposition to H.R. 946, the Plain Writing Act of
2010.
Madam Speaker, we all want Federal agencies to communicate
information about benefits and services in plain language. Overly
bureaucratic language can confuse the public and prevent individual
citizens from receiving benefits and services Congress intended to
provide them. If we could get government agencies to write in plain
language by issuing a congressional fiat, this problem would have been
solved, I am sure, a long time ago. This bill is unlikely to accomplish
its purpose, but
[[Page H7315]]
it is likely to incur a cost of about $5 million annually, according to
the Congressional Budget Office. This is the heart of my concern.
The bill directs senior agency officials to make certain that the
agency is communicating clearly with the public. Federal employees are
to be trained to write plainly, and documents produced by the agency
are to be drafted using writing that follows ``best practices
appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.'' Thus, even
the bill's definition of the term ``plain writing'' is not necessarily
clear.
Madam Speaker, at a time of record budget deficits and amid our
Federal Government's fiscal woes, we should not be spending another $5
million to direct the Federal Government to do something that it should
already be doing. Federal agencies that deal with the public should
obviously be communicating the benefits and services they provide in
clear, understandable language. It should not require legislation to
accomplish that goal, and it is not clear how the legislation would
actually achieve that. Federal agencies already receive funds to
communicate about their programs and throwing more money at the problem
is unlikely to improve the situation.
I urge Members to oppose H.R. 946.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield 5 minutes to the
chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Braley).
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. I thank my friend from Missouri for yielding to
me.
In February of 2009, I introduced the Plain Writing Act, and I rise
today to talk about the responsibility of this government to
communicate effectively with its citizens.
I know that lawyers are often blamed for the legalese that makes
government documents so difficult to read and understand, so some might
find it unusual that this ``plain language'' bill was introduced by
someone who practiced law for 23 years before being elected to
Congress. They might be surprised to learn that the use of clear,
concise language in communications has been a passion of mine since I
started practicing in 1983, when the Iowa Supreme Court adopted plain
language guidelines for use in its jury instructions. Since that time,
I've been speaking and writing about the importance of using plain
language to improve both written and spoken communications.
I was proud to introduce the Plain Writing Act, a bill that requires
the Federal Government to write documents such as letters from the
Social Security Administration or a notice from the Department of
Veterans Affairs in simple, easy-to-understand language. I first
introduced this bill last Congress and was proud when it passed the
House floor earlier this year with overwhelming support. In fact, this
same bill passed by a vote of 376-1 on April 14, 2008, and by a vote of
386-33 on March 17, 2010. Yesterday it passed the Senate unanimously.
I want to thank Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Ed Towns and
Ranking Member Darrell Issa for their support of this important
legislation. I also want to thank Senator Bennett from Utah, Senator
Voinovich from Ohio and Senator Akaka from Hawaii for working together
in a bipartisan manner to get the Senate to pass this important bill.
Anyone who's done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to
understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions. There
is absolutely no reason for the Federal Government not to write these
tax documents and other public documents in language we can all
understand. Yet despite the objections of my friend from Utah, the
Federal Government, no matter who's in charge, has always had a problem
with this accountability.
Writing documents in plain language will increase government
accountability and save Americans time and money. Plain,
straightforward language makes it easier for taxpayers to understand
what the Federal Government is doing and what services it's offering.
Small businesses will see substantial benefits from eliminating Federal
gobbledygook.
{time} 2000
Often small businesses have to hire lawyers and accountants to help
them navigate the maze of Federal paperwork and convoluted language.
The National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the
average per hour cost of paperwork and recordkeeping for small
businesses is $48.72. The use of clear, easy-to-understand language in
government paperwork will substantially reduce burdens on small
businesses and save taxpayers millions of dollars.
The Plain Writing Act will require the Federal Government to use
plain communications, forms, and public distributed documents, writing
in a clear, concise, well-organized manner that follows the best
practices of plain language writing.
Using these complex forms, letters, and notices imposes unnecessary
hardships on American citizens, and replacing them with plain language
will improve service to the public, save time that agencies currently
spend answering questions about what documents mean, and make it easier
to hold agencies accountable for their work.
I know this bill will make it easier for Americans and small
businesses to work and understand their government.
I want to thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who
join me today in standing up for plain language and plain writing and
standing up for effective communication with our constituents and
standing up for small business owners and in standing up for the
taxpayers who, despite the CBO estimate of the short-term cost, will
see substantial savings as we reduce the time that Federal agencies
spend responding to requests for information.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have the greatest respect for Chairman Clay and for Congressman
Braley. I think their goals and intentions, the stated objective is
admirable. It is laudable. It's something I'm sure we can all agree
with. We should be writing in plain, clear language.
There are two challenges. The thing that just makes me smile about
this is that this language was put together. It passed in the House. It
goes over to the Senate. The Senate comes back and says your definition
of plain language is not clear. In fact, they came back--and this is
what it says right in the bill that they sent back to us, the term,
quote, plain writing, end quote, means writing that is clear, and then
it continues on. This is not necessarily going to solve the problem.
This is not going to solve the problem.
And yet in a time of record budget deficits, we're 13-plus trillion
dollars in debt. We're spending $5- to $600 million a day just in
interest on that debt. This bill suggests and authorizes that we're
going to authorize $50 million over the next 10 years, $50 million to
say, Go write in plain language.
Well, let's be plain and let's be clear. We've got a debt crisis in
this country. That's plain. It is clear. We all understand it. Our
Federal Government should not be spending $50 million over 10 years
directing agencies to say, Write more plain, clear language. Why they
need $5 million a year to try to implement this is beyond me, but
enough is enough. We cannot afford this.
Tell and direct and insist that every agency and every document be
instituted in plain, clear language, and if the head of that agency
can't achieve that goal, then they should fire somebody and get
somebody who can do that.
There is no definition in the bill of what clear and plain writing
is. To say that it is clear does not solve the problem, and so the
Federal Government, every time it runs into trouble, what does it do?
Let's throw more money at it. We can't afford $50 million over the next
10 years to write plain language. That's plain. That's clear. And
that's why we should oppose this bill.
I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, again, I encourage all Members to support
the Senate amendments to H.R. 946, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and
concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 946.
[[Page H7316]]
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________