Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Requires government contracts to use simple, clear language that anyone can understand.
The problem
Government contracts often use complicated legal language that is hard for small businesses and regular people to understand, making it difficult to compete for government work.
The proposal
The bill requires federal agencies to write contracts in plain language using short sentences, simple words, and clear organization so people can easily understand the terms.
The impact
Small businesses, contractors, and ordinary citizens would find it easier to read and understand government contracts they might bid on or sign.
Small businesses could more easily understand contract terms without hiring expensive lawyers. This levels the playing field against large companies that already have legal teams. More small businesses might bid on government contracts.
When contracts are clearer, people understand what they're agreeing to and make fewer mistakes. This can reduce costly legal fights between the government and contractors later.
Clearer contracts mean fewer misunderstandings and legal disputes, which saves taxpayers money on court costs and contract problems. Government workers also spend less time explaining complicated terms.
When government contracts are easy to understand, the public sees the government as more honest and transparent. People can actually see what their government is agreeing to.
Simpler language might miss important legal details that protect the government. Shorter, clearer contracts could leave loopholes that contractors exploit. Complex issues sometimes need complex language to cover all situations.
Government agencies would need to hire experts to rewrite all existing contracts in plain language. This takes time and money upfront, though it might save money later.
Requiring plain language reviews before contracts are finalized could slow down the government's ability to quickly award contracts when needed. Emergency situations might be delayed.
It's unclear who decides if a contract is written in "plain" enough language or what the rules are. Different agencies might interpret the requirement differently, creating confusion.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.