On the recordSeptember 29, 2010
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 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.…





