# Congress exempting itself from the laws it passes **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 17, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031 "2010-11-17T22:54:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rgeiger5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/dc4da7/32.png) [@rgeiger5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rgeiger5)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/1 "2010-11-17T22:54:58Z")
I recently got an email saying that Congress exempted itself from the Healthcare Reform bill that it passed last year. Is this true? How often has our Congress done this in the past? Are there any trends toward more or less use of this (in my opinion) egregious practice? And, finally, is there any serious talk about a constitutional amendment to stop it? ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/2 "2010-11-17T23:03:34Z")
A quick Google search says it’s not true: [http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250022](http://mediamatters.org/research/201003250022) ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/3 "2010-11-17T23:07:04Z")
No, not true. > **[Congress Exempt from Health Bill? - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/)** > > Q: Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions? A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers. We’ve received... > **[Lawmaker Loopholes? - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/)** > > Q: Is Congress exempt from “many” laws including one against sexual harassment? A: No. The latest e-mail rant against Congress — proposing a “28th Amendment” to the Constitution — is full of false and outdated claims. FULL QUESTION A chain e-mail... > **[The 28th Amendment](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/28th-amendment/)** > > Warren Buffett did not propose a constitutional amendment that seeks to require laws apply equally to U.S. citizens and members of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![E.Thorp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@E.Thorp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E.Thorp)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/4 "2010-11-17T23:40:27Z")
If you first read about it in an email, chances are it isn’t true. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/5 "2010-11-18T01:07:23Z")
It would be terrific to have a Constitutional amendment making the sending of idiotic falsehoods in email glurge illegal. Why does nobody ever talk about that? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![EristicKallistic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/85e7bf/32.png) [@EristicKallistic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EristicKallistic)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/6 "2010-11-18T01:20:39Z")
We wouldn’t need to amend the constitution for that. I’m sure Congress could just pass a law, and the SCOTUS could squeeze it by on some Commerce Clause basis. Write to your senators and representatives! ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/7 "2010-11-18T02:13:33Z")
Current law has Members of Congress as federal employees and thus eligible for Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program coverage. FEHB is not a healthcare program, per se. FEBH is a program where federal employees may select among several private heath care companies that have been vetted for their coverage. New federal employees have a 60-day grace period when they may enroll, or choose not to enroll (in which case they may seek health coverage as an individual/family and pay the higher rates). Once a year during open season federal employees may decide to switch their coverage. It’s open season right now. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/8 "2010-11-18T06:01:18Z")
> [@E.Thorp](#): > > If you first read about it in an email, chances are it isn’t true. That’s a general rule about ALL news stories: If the first you’ve heard about it is in a real news source (news website, newspaper, news TV show, etc.), then it might be true. (Even then, no guarantees.) If the first you’ve heard about it is in an email. it’s almost certainly NOT true. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/9 "2010-11-18T08:52:44Z")
Coming back to the other aspects of the OP’s question (are there examples where Congress actually did exempt itself from laws it enacted?): [Here](http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm) is a website from the website of the House covering all sorts of acts that have been said not to apply to Congress, together with a discussion of the merits of these claims ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/10 "2010-11-18T13:13:08Z")
What you linked to was from 1993, so it’s possible that at least some of those laws are now applicable to Congress. Beyond those, though, there were a number of laws that were not applicable to Congress, specifically ones that dealt with hiring discrimination and fair treatment of employees. When Republicans came to power in 1994, as part of their “Contract with America”, they passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which required Congress to follow those laws. The CAA applied the following laws to Congress: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute Veterans’ employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989 See this Factcheck article for more details: > **[Lawmaker Loopholes? - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/)** > > Q: Is Congress exempt from “many” laws including one against sexual harassment? A: No. The latest e-mail rant against Congress — proposing a “28th Amendment” to the Constitution — is full of false and outdated claims. FULL QUESTION A chain e-mail... ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/11 "2010-11-19T03:32:25Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > What you linked to was from 1993, so it’s possible that at least some of those laws are now applicable to Congress. Beyond those, though, there were a number of laws that were not applicable to Congress, specifically ones that dealt with hiring discrimination and fair treatment of employees. When Republicans came to power in 1994, as part of their “Contract with America”, they passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which required Congress to follow those laws. The CAA applied the following laws to Congress: > The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 > The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute > Veterans’ employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code > The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 > The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 > The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 > Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 > The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 > The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989 > > See this Factcheck article for more details: > > [Lawmaker Loopholes? - FactCheck.org](http://factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/) I am recalling this from 20 plus years ago, but these, and a substantial amount more have been passed. Of course, whoever reads the laws that come out? Where are they posted? At any rate, some substantial laws were made known in the newspapers, whenever it was, and they noted the clause “members of Congress are exempt” etc… It was shocking, not the vast number of laws like that, but that they were laws that were thought to be so well known. Kinda like a Congressional double secret probation… Best wishes, hh ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congress-exempting-itself-from-the-laws-it-passes/561031/12 "2010-11-19T03:55:17Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Of course, whoever reads the laws that come out? Where are they posted? Every action of the federal government gets published in the [Federal Register](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/). > [@](#): > > Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents If you want the text of bills, go to [Congressional Bills: Main Page](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/index.html). All bills are browsable there in full.