[Senate Report 110-412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
110th Congress 2d Session SENATE Report
110-412
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 869
PLAIN LANGUAGE IN GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 2007
----------
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
S. 2291
TO ENHANCE CITIZEN ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION AND SERVICES BY
ESTABLISHING PLAIN LANGUAGE AS THE STANDARD STYLE OF GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS ISSUED TO THE PUBLIC, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
July 10 (legislative day, July 9), 2008.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kevin J. Landy, Chief Counsel
Adam R. Sedgewick, Professional Staff Member
Lisa M. Powell, Chief Investigative Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
John K. Grant, Minority Counsel
Thomas A. Bishop, Minority Legislative Aide, Subcommittee on Oversight
of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
Calendar No. 869
110th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 110-412
======================================================================
PLAIN LANGUAGE IN GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 2007
_______
July 10 (legislative day, July 9), 2008.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2291]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 2291) to enhance
citizen access to Government information and services by
establishing plain language as the standard style of Government
documents issued to the public, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose & Summary................................................1
II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................5
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................6
V. Estimated Cost of Legislation....................................6
VI. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................7
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................8
I. PURPOSE & SUMMARY
The purpose of S. 2291, the Plain Language in Government
Communications Act (``Plain Language Act''), is to improve the
effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies by
promoting clear Government communication that the public can
understand and use.
II. BACKGROUND
The problem
Federal agencies issue documents that explain what the
agencies do, the requirements of federal laws and programs, how
members of the public can obtain various benefits, and for
manyother purposes. Too often, these documents are difficult for the
public to understand and use because they are poorly organized and
unnecessarily complex. Such writing costs the public both time and
money; time spent trying to understand the documents and money that
agencies spend answering questions from frustrated members of the
public. As Christopher Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, testified at a House hearing on the benefits of plain
language, ``The time and money that is wasted on translating legalese
into plain English is dead weight economic loss. It benefits no one,
and harms millions of consumers who pay for it.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Statement of Christopher Cox, Chairman, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission before House Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology, February 26, 2008
(hereafter ``Cox Testimony''), at p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear communication also is important for transparent and
accountable government. As Chairman Cox testified, when rules
are hard to understand, people are less likely to comply
because they do not understand their obligations, and people
who try to comply become frustrated and angry. When poorly
written rules are enforced, people view it as arbitrary and
unfair, and their confidence in government is eroded.\2\
According to Chairman Cox, ``Clarity in spelling out a
citizen's obligations is one of the most fundamental
requirements of the rule of law.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ibid. at p. 2.
\3\ See ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of writing documents in plain language
Studies demonstrate the value of plain language. As an
example, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs rewrote
selected form letters in plain language and tracked the
effects. One unit of a field office sent out a form letter
rewritten to be more clear and readable, while another unit
continued sending out the original form letter. More people
responded to the plain language letter than the original letter
(45 percent versus 29 percent). Additionally, all of the
responses to the plain language letter were complete, while 18
percent of the responses to the original letter were
incomplete.\4\ Another Veterans Affairs office rewrote a form
letter into plain language. They tracked telephone calls to the
office seeking help with the letter before and after it was
rewritten. These calls dropped more than 80 percent after the
plain language version was issued, from more than 1,100 in a
year to less than 200.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Reva Daniel, ``Revising Letters to Veterans,'' Technical
Communication (1st Q. 1995), pp. 69-75, 72-73, available online at
http://www.dbwriting.com/Revising%20Letters%20to%20 Veterans.pdf.
\5\ See ibid. at pp. 73-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State programs to promote clear communication with members
of the public are yielding impressive results as well. For
example, the State of Arizona recently rewrote 100 form
letters, working to organize, simplify, and shorten them. After
rewriting its letters, the State Unclaimed Property Section
received 11,000 fewer telephone calls in 2007 than 2006,
allowing the staff to process 30,000 more claims than the
previous year.\6\ Likewise, the Washington State ``plain talk''
initiative is improving government efficiency. The Washington
Department of Revenue rewrote information about the State ``use
tax,'' which had been widely misunderstood and ignored. Now,
three times as many businesses are paying the tax, bringing in
an additional $800,000 revenue over two years.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Amanda Crawford, ``Revenue Department Sees Effects of Plain
Talk,' '' The Arizona Republic, January 6, 2008, available online at
http://www.governor.state.az.us/er/documents/News/
StateTargetsBureaucrateseToImproveCommunication.pdf.
\7\ See ``Washington State Sees Results from `Plain Talk'
Initiative,'' USA Today, December 10, 2006, available online at http://
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-12-10-washington-plain-talk_x.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plain Language Act
The Plain Language Act builds upon past and current plain
language efforts in the federal government. On June 1, 1998,
President Clinton issued a memorandum directing federal
agencies to use plain language. That memorandum required plain
language to be used in ``all new documents, other than
regulations, that explain how to obtain a benefit or service or
how to comply with a requirement you administer or enforce'' by
October 1, 1998. Later deadlines were provided for issuing
regulations in plain language and for reissuing documents
written prior to October 1, 1998.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Memorandum from President William J. Clinton to Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies regarding Plain Language in
Government Writing, June 1, 1998, available at http://
www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/govmandates/memo.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice President Gore oversaw implementation of the plain
language requirements and coordinated the federal government's
Plain Language Action Network (PLAN).\9\ The Clinton memorandum
remains in effect, and many agencies maintain plain language
programs. PLAN (now the Plain Language Action and Information
Network or PLAIN) continues promoting plain language in federal
government communications and providing plain language writing
workshops.\10\ Although many agencies have made progress, the
plain language initiative has been implemented unevenly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Brian Friel, ``Gore orders agencies to write in plain
English,'' Government Executive, June 2, 1998; John Broderick,
``Reinventing Government: The Role of Plain Language,'' available
online at http://www.odu.edu/al/jpbroder/jpbcladenglish.doc, at 1-2.
\10\ See Joanne Locke, ``A History of Plain Language in the United
States Government,'' 2004, available at www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/
history/locke.cfm; Statement of Annetta Cheek, Chair of the Center for
Plain Language before House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee
on Contracting and Technology, February 26, 2008 (hereafter ``Cheek
testimony''), at p. 5; Cox Testimony, at p. 2-4 (discussing plain
language initiatives at the Securities and Exchange Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the progress that has been made, a wide variety of
organizations have called on Congress to pass legislation to
reinforce the existing plain language programs because their
members continue to lose time and money struggling to
understand federal government documents.\11\ The following
organizations have sent or joined letters in support of the
Plain Language Act: the AARP, Disabled American Veterans,
National Small Business Association, Small Business Legislative
Council, Women Impacting Public Policy, American Association of
Law Libraries, American Library Association, Special Libraries
Association, American Nurses Association, Association for
Business Communication, Association of Professional
Communication Consultants, Strategic Communication Inc., and
Usability Professionals' Association.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Statement of Todd McCracken, President of the National
Small Business Association before House Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology, February 26, 2008, at p. 2
(``The federal government's proclivity towards arcane, ambiguous, or
simply incomprehensible language translates into billions of lost hours
and dollars.''); Statement of Robert Romasco, Member of the Board of
Directors of the AARP before House Committee on Small Business,
Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology, February 26, 2008
(hereafter Romasco Testimony) (``AARP hears every day from our members
who cannot understand the dense writing and legalese in correspondence
they receive from the federal government. In most cases, this lack of
comprehension is not the fault of the reader but rather the
impenetrable writing style of the government agency.'').
\12\ All letters available upon request to the Senate Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codifying plain language requirements would guarantee over
time consistent use of plain language in all federal
agencies.\13\ The Plain Language Act includes provisions
designed to ensure full implementation across the federal
government. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would
develop and issue guidelines for plain language writing, so
that all agencies will have a single set of standards to
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Romasco Testimony (``In order to ensure uniform
progress in this area, AARP believes a statutory requirement for
government agencies to write in plain language, and a requirement that
the agencies report to Congress on the progress they are making in
meeting this goal, is needed to help ensure compliance.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB raised concerns about the burden that this legislation
will place on that agency. The Committee intends that OMB would
play a coordinating and facilitating role. However, agencies
would be primarily responsible for implementing the plain
language requirements and OMB would not be responsible for
reviewing agency communications for compliance or directly
overseeing the plain language requirements. To further address
OMB's concerns, Senator Akaka intends to offer a substitute
amendment to S. 2281, prior to its passage by the Senate.
Section 4(b) of the substitute amendment would permit the
Director of OMB to designate a lead agency and to use
interagency working groups to assist OMB in carrying out its
responsibilities under the Act.
After agencies submit initial reports directly to Congress,
OMB would review agencies' reports on compliance with the
legislation and report to Congress on agencies' progress. This
reporting system would enhance OMB's coordination role while
facilitating congressional oversight. OMB may have agencies
combine their reports on compliance with this Act with the
annual compliance reports required under the E-Government Act.
The Plain Language Act would place no restrictions or
requirements on OMB's development of the plain language
guidance. OMB may adapt the plain language guidelines developed
by PLAIN or by the Securities and Exchange Commission if
appropriate, and it may rely on the expertise of PLAIN, any
agency, or other organization, such as the Center for Plain
Language, in developing the guidelines.
The Plain Language Act defines ``plain language'' with
reference to the ``intended audience.'' As Annetta Cheek, Chair
of the Center for Plain Language, testified at the House
hearing, ``[t]here are no hard rules in plain language except
to be clear to your intended reader.'' \14\ Writing in plain
language does not require deleting complex information; rather
it means organizing and presenting information in a way that
improves readability. Specialized vocabulary, such as legal or
scientific terms, may be appropriate when addressing an
audience that understands the terms. However, when addressing a
general audience, specialized terms should be explained or
avoided if not necessary to accurately present the information
conveyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Cheek Testimony, at p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plain Language Act's definition of ``covered document''
is based upon the definition of new documents covered by the
Clinton memorandum. The definition is broad and is intended to
encompass most written communications with the public except
regulations. The list of types of documents specifically
included in the definition--letters, publications, forms,
notices, and instructions--is intended to illustrate rather
than to limit the types of documents covered. Thedefinition
covers written communications provided to members of the public
electronically, for example written website content or email
communication, as well as printed documents.
Unlike the Clinton memorandum, however, the Plain Language
Act would not require rewriting existing documents in plain
language or writing regulations in plain language. The
legislation would exclude these requirements in order to reduce
the burden on agencies and OMB. Likewise, the Committee
recognizes that many regulations are technical and complicated,
so implementing plain language writing for rulemaking may
require additional planning and training beyond what is
necessary for other documents. Accordingly, the Plain Language
Act would allow agencies to focus their efforts first on other
types of writing. However, the Plain Language Act is not
intended to discourage any executive branch plain language
writing requirements or programs that would not be required by
the Act.
To further reduce the burden of the legislation, agencies
would be given one year from the date of enactment to comply
with plain language requirements, which is a significantly
longer time period than the Clinton memorandum provided.
OMB raised concerns that this legislation would lead to
litigation. The Committee does not intend to create any
individually enforceable right. Rather, it will be the
responsibility of agencies, OMB, and Congress to ensure that
the plain language requirements are implemented. To address
OMB's concern, the substitute amendment that Senator Akaka
intends to offer would add a new Section 6, specifying that
there shall be no judicial review of compliance with the Act,
and that the Act creates no right or benefit enforceable in any
administrative or judicial action.
III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On November 1, 2007, Senator Akaka introduced the Plain
Language Act (S. 2291), which was referred to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators McCaskill,
Carper, and Levin are original cosponsors of the legislation.
Senators Obama, Clinton, Tester, Voinovich, Collins, and
Cochran have joined as cosponsors of the Plain Language Act as
well.
On April 10, 2008, the Committee considered S. 2291 and
ordered the bill reported favorably by voice vote without
amendment. Members present for the vote were Lieberman, Levin,
Akaka, Carper, Landrieu, McCaskill, Tester, Collins, Voinovich,
and Sununu.
Representative Braley introduced a companion bill (H.R.
3548) in the House of Representatives on September 17, 2007,
which was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. On February 26, 2008, the House Small
Business Committee, Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology,
held a hearing on the benefits of plain language.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
ordered the legislation to be reported as amended on March 13,
2008. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 3548 on April
14, 2008, and it currently is pending in the Senate.
IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 titles the bill.
Section 2 identifies the purpose of the Act as improving
Federal agencies' effectiveness and accountability to the
public by promoting clear government communication that the
public can understand and use.
Section 3 defines the terms ``agency,'' ``covered
document,'' and ``plain language.''
Section 4(a) requires that not later than one year after
the date of enactment agencies use plain language in any
covered document that the agency issues or substantially
revises.
Section 4(b) directs OMB to develop guidance on
implementing the requirements of Section 4(a) and issue it as a
circular. In the interim before the guidance is issued,
agencies would be directed to follow PLAIN's plain language
guidelines, the Plain English Handbook published by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, or any guidance issued by
the agency head that is consistent with the PLAIN guidelines.
Section 5(a) requires the head of each agency to submit an
initial report to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform within six months of enactment. The initial
report would designate a senior official responsible for
implementing the requirements of the Act and describe the
agency's plan to train employees in plain language writing,
meet the deadline for compliance with the Act, and ensure
ongoing compliance.
Section 5(b) requires the agency to submit reports to OMB
on compliance with this legislation. OMB would review those
reports and submit a report on the agencies' compliance to the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
annually for the first two years after the date of enactment
and once every three years thereafter. OMB would notify each
agency of the date by which the agency's report is required to
enable it to meet its reporting deadline.
V. ESTIMATED COST OF LEGISLATION
April 15, 2008.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2291, the Plain
Language in Government Communications Act of 2007.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew
Pickford.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag.
Enclosure.
S. 2291--Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007
S. 2291 would amend federal law to require all federal
agencies within one year to use plain language (clear and
readily identifiable to the intended reader) in all documents,
including letters, publications, and forms. The legislation
also would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
provide governmentwide guidance on this matter. Finally, S.
2291 would require each agency to designate a coordinator for
its efforts to use plain language, review its compliance with
the legislation, train employees to use plain language, and
prepare reports to the Congress on compliance with the
legislation.
CBO estimates that implementing S. 2291 would cost up to $2
million a year for agencies to implement the additional
employee training and reporting requirements, subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. The bill could also affect
direct spending by agencies not funded through annual
appropriations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the
Bonneville Power Administration. CBO estimates, however, that
any increase in spending by those agencies would not be
significant.
Most provisions of the bill would codify and expand current
practices of the federal government. Executive Order 12866 and
the Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language (June 1, 1998)
currently require government agencies to write in language that
is comprehensible to readers. Based on information from OMB,
CBO estimates that implementing this bill would not
significantly increase the cost of preparing various paper or
electronic documents used throughout the government.
S. 2291 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
On April 8, 2008, CBO provided a cost estimate for H.R.
3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of
2007, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform on March 13, 2008. Both pieces of
legislation are similar and the estimated costs are the same.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew
Pickford. This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
VI. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact that would be incurred in
carrying out this legislation. CBO states that there are no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on State, local, or
tribal governments. The legislation contains no other
regulatory impact.
VII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
Because this legislation would not repeal or amend any
provision of current law, it would make no changes in existing
law within the meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 12
of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.