 There are some obvious structural differences between the two congressional bodies. The Senate has 100 seats, compared to the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. There are two senators elected per state, both representing the entire state, while in the House there is one representative per electoral district, with each state carved up into districts according to population. Serving in the Senate also has more stringent requirements. Senators have to be at least 30 years of age, a resident of the represented state, and a citizen of the United States for at least nine years. Aside from these structural differences, there are some fundamental differences between the houses, which have been a source of tension throughout history. In earlier years, the Senate considered itself superior to the House of Representatives. So much so in fact, that even President Washington was snubbed when he approached the Senate for advice on a recently negotiated Indian Treaty. Instead of aiding the President by discussing the issue immediately, the Senate deferred the problem to a committee. This arrogance, fueled in part by the British system of an upper house, the House of Lords, and a lower house, the House of Commons, drove a wedge between the Senate and the legislative workhorse, the House of Representatives. One major point of contention between the houses was elections. The house, designed to directly represent the will of the people, was chosen by popular election. Senators on the other hand, were chosen by state legislatures, and were expected to represent the interests of those in power in a given state. This system of electing senators however, became corrupt. After years of suspect elections, the system was changed in 1913, with the passing of the 17th Amendment, that declared that all senatorial seats would be filled by popular election. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and each senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. 17th Amendment to the Constitution, 1913 Though senators represented a first group of constituents, most tend to fit a certain mold. They are usually wealthy, white males, with a background in law or business. Because of this trend, congressional representation is often described as substantive, rather than descriptive. In other words, although senators may not share a common background or culture with their constituents, they have dedicated themselves to representing their constituents' interests. Many claim Senator Ted Kennedy is a good example of this. Though he is clearly a member of the Eastern elite, his record in the Senate shows he has spoken up for the poor, undereducated, and unemployed. Plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else is the wrong priority. We need to do more for working families and communities across America. We can do more by raising the minimum wage. Senator Ted Kennedy, September 3, 1998 Although the American people still elect the president and members of Congress, many critics feel that senators and representatives are no longer focused enough on protecting the interests of their constituents. Essentially, the people have been distant or completely removed from the legislative process. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Have you considered that the advent of new technologies has greatly enhanced the power of the American people? Cable television and the Internet disseminate information broadly and quickly, and people can use this knowledge to hold their representatives accountable. Considering this, do you think that the people are too removed from the legislative process? What if you consider that every member of Congress must be re-elected by the people they represent? There are always new candidates ready to unseat an incumbent member of Congress. Members of Congress serve limited terms, with senators elected for six years, while representatives are elected for two-year terms. Given this influence over elected officials, do you think the American public is removed from the legislative process? What if you knew that the reelection rate for both houses of Congress has declined greatly since World War II? Very few members of Congress are elected for life, as used to be the case. Given this increased power of the voters, do you feel the American people are removed from the legislative process? Although public access to the legislative process is somewhat limited, the people can certainly influence the process. The Internet, talk radio, and cable television news disseminate information much more rapidly and broadly than ever before and hold members of Congress to a higher degree of accountability. However, powerful lobbyists, global concerns, and an incredibly complicated legislative process prevent Congress from focusing its full attention on public concerns and needs. Despite some obstacles, the people still have means by which they can play a role in the legislative process, such as voting, lobbying, and recall elections. Power in the Senate is not as clearly defined as it is in the House, and it is much more widely dispersed. The Vice President of the United States is appointed President of the Senate, but the majority and minority leaders hold the real power. They, along with party whips, dictate legislative agenda and work hard to urge members to vote along party lines. Because of their key role, the whips retain a great deal of power. As in the House, a great deal of power is held in the hands of committee and subcommittee chairpersons, making them positions of prominence. Aside from individual positions of power, the Senate as a whole is given its authority by the Constitution. The power of confirmation, for example, which grants authority and influence over the President, gives the Senate power to confirm presidential appointments. Major heads of bureaucratic agencies, Supreme Court justices, and even top advisors in the Executive Office must be approved by Senate committee hearings before they can assume their roles. This power can have a substantial effect on Presidencies. Before making a judicial appointment, the President typically would extend senatorial courtesy and ask for the support of the two senators who represent the state in which the federal judge's seat is being filled. With their vote of confidence, the appointment would be made and sent to the Justice Department Committee for review. Upon committee approval, a simple Senate majority would confirm the appointment. Senate committees operate much like House committees. There are 16 standing committees which are further divided into subcommittees. The senators involved in these also serve on joint, conference, and select committees. Senators typically try to serve on committees that allow them to affect legislation impacting their home state. For example, it is common for a Nebraska senator to seek a seat on the Agricultural Committee. The House and Senate do, however, differ on how they conduct business and determine legislation. Since the Senate has open and unrestricted debate on bills, it has always been a contemplative body, one that is more willing to discuss legislation. Any senator who can get the floor can talk as long as his win lasts. He cannot be out of order unless he takes the most extravagant liberties. At DW Brogan, 1944. But because there is no time limit on discussions, a unique strategy dubbed the filibuster is sometimes used to try and block legislation. By refusing to end discussion of a bill and continuing to talk without relinquishing the floor, a senator or senators can continue to speak without end in hopes that other senators will drop the discussion. During the 1950s, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond once filibustered for 24 hours in an attempt to defeat a civil rights bill. Despite their power, filibusters can be deterred by a motion for cloture, which is a vote to limit debate on a bill. However, cloture voting usually follows strict partisan lines. And because it requires a three-fifths majority to pass, parties that call for cloture seldom succeed. Once an extraordinary tactic that senators used sparingly, the filibuster has become a common strategy for defeating presidential appointments or legislation that splits party loyalties. Though many have tried to make filibustering more difficult, senators such as former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia, regard the tactic as not only important, but vital to the legislative process. The minority can be right, and on many occasions in this country's history, the minority was right. Robert Byrd.