[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17092-17094]
[From the U.S. 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:
       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 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

[[Page 17093]]

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.
  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

[[Page 17094]]

proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________