# Status of Senators vs. Representatives **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 20, 2002, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016 "2002-12-20T14:48:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/1 "2002-12-20T14:48:04Z")
Why do U.S. Senators seem to have more prestige than the Representatives? They seem to gain greater national prominence and have greater power. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/2 "2002-12-20T14:55:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/3 "2002-12-20T15:14:25Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/4 "2002-12-20T16:02:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/5 "2002-12-20T16:24:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > **Also, it’s the upper house of Congress** 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](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 ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/6 "2002-12-20T16:31:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by muttrox \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/7 "2002-12-20T17:19:55Z")
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?) ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/8 "2002-12-20T17:50:46Z")
Senators were also fairly immune from public opinion, back when they were chosen by state legislatures. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/9 "2002-12-20T17:57:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Munch \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/10 "2002-12-20T18:22:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cliffy \* > **No, it’s not [the upper house of Congress]…** Possibly, but Senators nevertheless rank above Representatives in the order of precedence. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/11 "2002-12-20T18:31:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/12 "2002-12-20T18:46:48Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/13 "2002-12-20T19:21:47Z")
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”. ---
**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:** [December 20, 2002, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/14 "2002-12-20T19:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Qadgop the Mercotan \* > \*\*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.” ---
**Author:** ![Blueapple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Blueapple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blueapple)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/15 "2002-12-20T19:25:23Z")
[C-SPAN link](http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly38.asp) on referring to the other body. ---
**Author:** ![shulmahn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6bbea6/32.png) [@shulmahn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shulmahn)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/16 "2002-12-20T19:27:25Z")
From [A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_house_practice&docid=hp-16) > [@](#): > > Sec. 23 . – References to Senate > > ``` > Generally > > A well-established rule of comity prohibits certain references in > > ``` > > debate to the Senate or to individual Senators. Indeed, at one time > there could be no reference to any debate or votes in the Senate on > the same subject. This principal, first enunciated in Jefferson’s > Manual (see Manual Sec. 371), was > > [[Page 378]] > > strictly applied in the House for many years. See 5 Hinds Secs. 5095 > et seq.; 8 Cannon Secs. 2501 et seq. > This principal was modified in 1987, and again in 1989, by > amendments to Rule XIV. Under this rule: > > ``` > Debate [in the House] may include references to actions taken by > the Senate or by committees thereof which are a matter of public > record, references to the pendency or sponsorship in the Senate of > bills, resolutions, and amendments, factual descriptions relating to > Senate action or inaction concerning a measure then under debate in > the House, and quotations from Senate proceedings on a measure then > under debate in the House and which are relevant to the making of > legislative history establishing the meaning of that measure, but > may not include characterizations of Senate action or inaction, > other references to individual Members of the Senate, or other > quotations from Senate proceedings. Manual Sec. 749. > > References to the Senate or Its Proceedings > > A Member is permitted to refer to the existence of the Senate and > > ``` > > its functions in a general and neutral way. For example, a Member may > oppose a sine die adjournment resolution on the grounds that Congress > should stay in session to complete action on specified legislation > then pending in the Senate. 5 Hinds Sec. 5115. It is appropriate to > state whether or not the Senate has acted on House-passed legislation > as long as criticism is neither stated nor implied. If references to > the Senate are appropriate, the Member delivering them is not required > to use the term `the other body,'' and the use of the term `Senate’’ > is not a per se violation of the rule of comity. 98-2, Oct. 4, 1984, > pp 30046, 30047; Manual Sec. 371. > On the other hand, it is not in order to criticize Senate actions. > 5 Hinds Sec. 5114; 96-2, Dec. 10, 1980, p 33205; 103-1, Apr. 27, 1993, > p \_\_\_\_. Statements in debate speculating as to the intent of the > Senate with respect to legislation pending in the House remain a > violation of the rule of comity. 98-2, Oct. 11, 1984, pp 32221-23. It > is a breach of order in debate to refer to the motives of the Senate > in passing certain legislation. 99-1, Oct. 17, 1985, p 27772. While a > Member in debate may refer to the pendency of a House-passed bill in > the Senate, it is a breach of order in debate to refer to a House bill > as ``languishing’’ in the Senate. 99-2, July 31, 1986, p 18253. Even > statements urging the Senate to take action have been ruled out. 102- > 1, Oct. 8, 1991, p \_\_\_\_. > On one occasion, prior to the amendment of Rule XIV, the Speaker > entertained a unanimous-consent request that a Member be permitted to > refer in debate to certain Senate proceedings. 96-2, June 4, 1980, p > 13212. But the Chair will not entertain such a request where the > references would necessarily imply criticism of the Senate, such as to > respond to remarks in the > > [[Page 379]] > > Senate which were critical of Members of the House (8 Cannon > Sec. 2519). Manual Sec. 371. > > ``` > References to Individual Senators > > With certain exceptions, under clause 1 of Rule XIV remarks in > > ``` > > debate may not include references to individual Members of the Senate, > and the Chair enforces this principle on his own initiative. 102-2, > Oct. 2, 1992, p \_\_\_\_. References to individual Members of the Senate > (98-2, Oct. 2, 1984, pp 28504, 28505), even in a complimentary or > congratulatory way (99-2, Aug. 5, 1986, pp 19040, 19044; 103-1, Apr. > 21, 1993, p \_\_\_\_) or to actions which named Members of the Senate, or > Senators designated by position, might take, are out of order (98-2, > Oct. 11, 1984, pp 32152, 32153). See also 99-2, Mar. 13, 1986, p 4625. > It is not in order to refer critically to a Member of the Senate or to > the actions of individual Senators. 98-2, May 8, 1984, pp 11421, > 11425, 11428. In 1985, the Chair admonished a Member during debate not > to refer to a Senator in a critical manner although not identified by > name. 99-1, Dec. 18, 1985, pp 37813, 37814. Even a reference to > another person’s criticism of a Senator is a violation of the rule. > 98-1, Aug. 4, 1983, pp 23136, 23145, 23147. It is also a violation of > the rule of comity to refer in debate to specific votes by particular > Members of the Senate, and the Chair calls Members to order on his own > initiative when this occurs. 97-1, July 29, 1981, p 18249; 98-2, Apr. > 12, 1984, pp 9474, 9477, 9478; 98-2, July 31, 1984, p 21670; and 99-2, > Mar. 13, 1986, p 4636. Under the current rule a Senator’s comments in > debate may be quoted in the House when relevant to pending > legislation. Manual Sec. 749. > In one case, the personal views of a Senator, not uttered in the > Senate, were allowed to be quoted in the House (5 Hinds Sec. 5112), > but the weight of recent precedent prohibits references to speeches or > statements of Senators occurring outside the Senate Chamber. 8 Cannon > Sec. 2515; Manual Sec. 371. > References to former Members of the House who are presently > Senators are only permissible if they merely address prior House > service and are not implicitly critical of Senatorial service. 98-2, > May 8, 1984, p 11431. > References to Members of the Senate in their capacity as nominated > candidates for the Presidency or other office are not prohibited, but > references attacking the character or integrity of a Senator even in > that context are not in order. 96-1, Oct. 30, 1979, p 30150; Manual > Sec. 371. > Debate may not include critical references to a named Senator in > his capacity as a member of a House-Senate conference committee. But > it is in order in debate, while discussing a question involving > conference committee procedure, to state what actually occurred in a > conference committee > > [[Page 380]] > > session, without referring to or criticizing a named member of the > Senate. 74-1, July 29, 1935, p 12011. > In 1985, a Member was called to order for referring in debate to > remarks made by a Senator during a Senate committee hearing. 99-1, May > 16, 1985, p 12229. In 1986, a Member, upon being cautioned by the > Chair not to refer to a Senator in debate, obtained unanimous consent > to refer to correspondence between the Senator and a federal official. > 99-2, June 25, 1986, pp 15492, 15499, 15505. More about the rules of the House can be found at [The Committee on Rules](http://www.house.gov/rules/) ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/17 "2002-12-20T22:04:02Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/18 "2002-12-20T22:12:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Blueapple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Blueapple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blueapple)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/19 "2002-12-20T22:20:06Z")
[This](http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/lawmaking/index.html) 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](http://congress.indiana.edu/learn_about/legislative.htm) is a more in-depth look at how laws are made. [About the two houses](http://congress.indiana.edu/learn_about/two_house.htm) [Capitol Questions](http://www.c-span.org/questions/) (will answer question on impeachment) Please feel free to ask more questions if need be. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2002, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016/20 "2002-12-20T22:55:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Usram \* > **I’ve never really grasped the differences in the powers and functions of the two houses of Congress.** 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 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/status-of-senators-vs-representatives/144016.md?page=2)