Why do U.S. Senators seem to have more prestige than the Representatives? They seem to gain greater national prominence and have greater power.
There are fewer Senators.
Also, it’s the upper house of Congress, which grants it a higher legal status. The Senate approves presidential court and cabinet nominees, so has more to say about how the President governs.
Senate is roughly equal to House of Representatives. HOR has many more members than Senate. Ergo, each individual Senator has more power than each individual Representative.
Also, Senators are elected for 6 years, and Representatives for only 2. If I didn’t have to worry about re-election as often as that, I would then be able to instigate more policies and slap my name on more bills.
No, it’s not:
“Unlike some other parliamentary bodies, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have equal legislative functions and powers (except that only the House of Representatives may initiate revenue bills), and the designation of one as the “upper” House and the other as the “lower” House is not appropriate.”
(From Willet, How Our Laws are Made, Law Revision Counsel, House of Representatives)
http://www.house.gov/house/HOLAM.TXT
I think the primary reason for the Senate’s prestige is the longer term. Senators are elected for six years, Reps. for only two. Given the current election cycles, this means that a representative has to start campaigning for reelection right after his installation, while Senators have some breathing room. This makes that Chamber more attactive to politicians, and it also leads to less churning of the membership, which means more senators are long-term members, meaning they have had time to establish expertise, political contacts, and national reputations over the years. The smaller size helps with this, making the Senate a more collegial body (because any two senators of whatever political persuasion will likely have more interaction than any two reps., they need to get along); this collegiality has engendered a reputation (not undeserved) that the Senate is more dispassionate and thoughtful than the House, which has so much churn that it’s always full of piss & vinegar freshmen. Finally, the fact that a senator has to win a state-wide election instead of relying on a small area of only a few hundred thousand voters to get elected means that he or she is likely to be more moderate and a better politician (as well as possibly already having a national reputation, such as the junior senator from new York) than an average Representative.
–Cliffy
That and House members are elected from geographical districts within their states. Senators are elected by the entire state, and usually only one Senator is elected from a given state at a time. For states with large House delegations, the Senators obviously have a lot more prominence in the local media.
Your average political person in NY probably doesn’t know who most of the Representatives are outside of his district, but he certainly knows who his two Senators are.
True, Cliffy, though I think it would be naive to overlook the obvious similarities between the Senate/House of Lords and House of Reps/House of Commons. The US was founded largely by landowning aristocrats who, though idealistic, still distrusted the great majority of people (else, why have two houses of congress at all?)
Senators were also fairly immune from public opinion, back when they were chosen by state legislatures.
True, but that was a long time ago, so I’d think that any residual prestige would be gone by now. I say that it’s a combination of longer terms, fewer senators, and (for states with more than one Rep) higher level of statwide recognition.
Possibly, but Senators nevertheless rank above Representatives in the order of precedence.
In which order of precedence are you referring to?
When the President addresses a joint session of Congress, the two people seated behind him are the presiding officers of each house, the Vice President (for the Senate) and the Speaker of the House. And the Speaker of the House gets to bang the gavel and get everyone’s attention.
And after the VP, the next line to become president is the Speaker of the House. It used to be the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, but that was changed after WWII.
If you tell your local Representative to Congress that your state’s two Senators are “in the upper body”, you will likely get a stern lecture on the nature of Congress.
Some of the extra duties assigned in the Constitution to the Senate were given more to insure that all states would have an equal say over matters such as treaties and confirmations of Presidential appointments, not because the Senate was “higher”.
Until recently, when there were debates in Congress, members were never allowed to refer to the other house by its name. It was always just “the other house” or “the other body”. Finally, Congress relented and the word “Senate” can be said in the House and vice versa.
That’s very interesting. Do you have a cite that explains why that was so? Was it just inter-house snobbery or was there a good reason?
LBJ was once asked if there was much difference between Senators and Representatives. It is reported that he said it was like the difference between “chicken salad and chicken shit”.
But then, on the other side, you have the House joke that someone who leaves the House to get elected to the Senate “raises the average level of intelligence in both chambers.”
C-SPAN link on referring to the other body.
From A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House
More about the rules of the House can be found at The Committee on Rules
This seems to be a widespread parliamentary tradition - in Britain, members of the House of Commons still refer to the House of Lords as “the other place”, and I believe Canadian MPs refer to their Senate in the same way.
I have some questions - I’ve never really grasped the differences in the powers and functions of the two houses of Congress. I gather that only the House of Representatives can raise new taxes. And it’s the Senate which decides on things like impeachment. But there must be more to it than that, surely.
other than that… I suppose it’s because I’m familiar with the British system (technically, we have two houses, but our so-called upper house, the House of Lords, is unelected and has little real power). In the US system, there seem to be two houses with real power. So what happens when the Senate disagrees with the Representatives? Also, as I understand it, bills can be introduced in either house - so does it make any difference that a Senator rather than a Representative proposed a bill?
Spending bills are initiated by the House; all bills must be brought into agreement before they can be sent to the president. The House brings bills of impeachment; the Senate conducts the trial.
This site gives a good explanation of how a bill becomes a law. (Yeah, it is for kids, but was the best site I could find)
Here is a more in-depth look at how laws are made.
Capitol Questions (will answer question on impeachment)
Please feel free to ask more questions if need be. 
As far as the functions and powers of the two Chambers, they are mostly equal. As intimated in this thread, the smaller size, longer terms, and more stable nature of the Senate tend to make it more deliberative, moderate, and intellectual than the House, which can be more contentious as well as more radical, but for the same reasons less moribund. Internal rules re-enforce these distinctions. (Such as the filibuster, whereby a single senator can hold up legislation unless it has significant support; nothing similar exists in the House.)
As to the primary business of passing laws, the Chambers are equal. Most bills can be introduced in either Chamber first and then, after passage, be transmitted to the other body for deliberation. Or, a bill can be introduced simultaneously in both Chambers. For any given law, each Chamber must pass an identical version, which is then sent to the president for his signature. If the versions differ, then they are sent to an ad hoc “conference committee” made up of members of both houses who then hammer out a compromise, which must then itself be passed by both Chambers.
There are some differences; tax bills (not spending bills, Nametag ;)) must start in the House, but if the House passes one, the Senate has the same power to accept, reject, or amend as it does any other House-originated bill. (And, if there are Senate amendments, the tax bill goes to conference like any other.)
The most significant functional difference is the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” power, which functions as a check on the president. When the president nominates persons as either judges or office holders in executive departments (such as Cabinet secretaries, but lower-level appointees, too), the Senate must approve. Similarly, if the president signs a treaty with a foreign power, the Senate must approve it as well, and for treaties it must approve with a 2/3 vote. The House has no version of this power. (Although note that for at least some kinds of treaties, if the president doesn’t think he can get 2/3 of the senate, then both Chambers can pass functionally equivalent legislation through the regular, two-Chamber majority vote.)
Anything else I’m missing?
–Cliffy