what was the toughest part of the job? donald: finding out what had just happened so that we could answer the question. reporters would catch us out of breath and want an answer about something historical. it clearly had something to do with something that had just happened in the senate. we had no idea what that was. we had to tell them to calm down, tell us what happened, and try to provide historical context. brian: really i think you spent about 12 years in the house. what about your answer to that question? raymond: i had to create the office. luckily, i had the senate historical office for a couple years.

don ritchie and dick baker were great role models and give me a lot of help. brian: i have a lot of video clips from different events in history. i get to throw anything up i want and look to you to be experts on this. let's start with everett dirksen who was a senator from illinois until 1969. here he is talking about the differences between republicans and democrats. >> could you tell me, what is the difference between a republican and a democrat? >> i am afraid we would have to devote the whole evening to it. i could highlight one or two things. one, of course, is the insistence on the part of republicans that we balance out our fiscal affairs and make sure that we are going to have a solid country. i think, generally speaking, our

friends on the other side of the aisle are prone to spend money and go in for new activities when it is rather doubtful whether or not it is good for the country and for the interest of the people. because, you pile up up your national debt, interest, staggering deficits that we have at the present time. that spins itself, in terms of higher interest rates, higher prices in the stores where people shop, so the evil effects always fall upon the people back home. brian: i know you two are not partisan and that was in 1967. put that in perspective. raymond: as a minority leader, he was very skillful in using

his senators when they were needed. the democratic majority was split between its conservative and liberal wings. on a number of occasions, they needed his vote. he was a master bargainer. he had that wonderful voice. he won a grammy for doing a record called "gallant men," in which he basically read patriotic texts with music in the background. it's pretty hokey now to listen to it, but it sold very well in the 1960's. he was talking at a time when the society had created a bunch of new programs like medicare. at the same time, the war in vietnam was going on. deficits were rising. dirksen makes this argument which sounds very contemporary. you could make the same argument today. brian: what would a democrat say about his answer?

donald: you have to think about what it was in the 1940's. -- the 1960's. you have the conservative wing of the liberal party and the same thing on the democratic side. in order to get anything done, they had to work out a compromise. the issues of how much you spend is always the central issue in politics. that is what congress does. one party is always going to accuse the other of spending too much money or spending it on the wrong things. brian: here is another historical figure, hughie long governor and senator from

louisiana, talking about the same thing. >> he had two bottles of medicine and he played his banjo. one of those bottles of medicine was called [indiscernible] another one was called [indiscernible], some one asked him, both are good, how are they different? one is made from the bark of the tree that we pick from the top down. the other is made from the bark that we take from the root up. the only difference i have found between the democratic leadership and the republican leadership was that one of them with skinning from the ankle up

and the other from the ear down. raymond: he was one of the great populists. he was appealing to the masses with a good yarn. he wanted to do the new deal one step better. he wanted wealth for everybody. spread the wealth around. that was his platform. he got pretty far with it, at least in louisiana. he was a very popular character for a while. ultimately, i think, like a lot of characters, he became consumed by his own power. and he was consumed by that.

brian: how many populists you think there were in history? and how would you define that? donald: there was a populist party. they were influential in the 1880's and 1890's. there have been far more members who are republicans or democrats who were populists in the sense that they appeal to the people and were antiestablishment. hughie long was a maverick. he gave just as much grief to his own party's leadership as the opposition. he would walk behind joe robinson on the floor and mimic his stride. he resigned from all of his committees because he said he didn't want to be beholden to someone like robinson.

the senate has always needed some mavericks to keep the institution bubbling. if they were all mavericks nothing would get done. brian: he was senator from 1932 to 1935 and governor after that. we have a comedian who talks about the congress. he can be rather strong with his language. his name is lewis black. let's watch his definition between the difference of republicans and democrats. >> we have a two-party system. the democratic party, which is the party of no ideas, and the republican party, which is the party of bad ideas. the way it works is the republican stands up in congress and goes "i have a really bad idea!" and the democrat says "and i can make it shittier!" [applause]

brian: comedy and the congress. donald: there was a speaker of the house who said it was a god-given right by every american to look down on their members of congress and make fun of them. he said that in 1925, so this is nothing new. mark twain said the same thing back in the 19th century. he said suppose you're an idiot and suppose you are a member of congress, but i repeat myself. members of congress are the people we elect. people really like their own representatives, but they know they are really working tough for them and representing their interests. it's everybody else's representatives they don't like. it is a reflection of our nation and our divisions. it is a subject of a lot of ridicule.

brian: all the times you are around congress or even since you left in 1995, who is the funniest member of congress? raymond: oh gosh. brian: who used humor more than anyone you can remember? raymond: some of them were quite funny on the floor. i'm trying to think of the name of the one who was particularly funny when i first got there. mo udahl had an iconic dry wit. he would sneak up on you with a little story and then completely flip it around. some of them are kind of blue so i can't repeat the ones i

remember. brian: do you have one from the senate? raymond: i suppose i would put bob dole at the top of my list. bob dole had a great sense of humor. we would call on him from time to time to draft remarks for leaders when there were historical events. you could put a joke into dull's -- dole's speech and then he would ad lib. a few more. he just had the right touch. i remember when they were dedicating the bust of agnew. he was the absent vice president in the collection. senator dole was getting ready to run for president and trying to figure out how to say something that would appeal to vice president agnew but wouldn't look too foolish in the media. we came up with a speech where he talked about the bust being there to honor the institution

of the vice presidency, not necessarily the individuals who served. some of the 19th century vice presidents left in a cloud -- in the middle of his speech, he said "the first bust was installed in 1890. strom thurmond tells me it was a beautiful ceremony." the whole place directed. -- erupted raymond: thomas brackett reed, the speaker of the house, was probably one of the smartest men to ever hold the post. genuinely funny. this was in the 1890's. he was a republican speaker. he once said of his democratic colleagues, they never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum total of knowledge. he wanted to run for president

he lost the nomination to william mckinley. he said, you could do worse and you probably will. brian: both of you have phd's from maryland. why did you get into history in the first place? raymond: i thought i would be a great scientist but kept flunking college algebra. i love to read from an early age. i had some great history teachers. they were great mentors. once i got involved with them, i saw history of my profession. brian: what is it about it? some people don't give a hoot about it. what drew you into it? raymond: i was curious.

i wanted to know about the world around me. i realized that nothing in the textbooks or press that i was reading told me anything about the african-american experience, other than maybe a little bit about slavery, a little bit about the civil war. but i didn't know anything, and i was curious to know something. i delved into that subject out of curiosity. donald: both ray and i were students in the 1960's. we met in 1967 in graduate school. it was such a tumultuous decade. i turned to history in part because it helped make sense of what was going on. it helped place the current day events into some sort of context. i actually looked at other fields. i looked into sociology and other things. i found history was the most satisfying in terms of making sense out of the present as well as the past.

i also had some very good professors. i a professor named fred israel who was just terrific and who had a methods seminar that taught me how to archive research and use microfilm and do oral history interviews. i came to the university of maryland and had a professor who taught me how to write and communicate. he used to say that no matter how brilliant your ideas are, if you can't communicate them, they are somewhat worthless. nobody else will understand what you are trying to get at. all of those factors came together. history was just the most satisfying field of all the ones i explored. brian: this man was senator from connecticut in 1952 to 1963. this is from the early days of black and white television. see if you recognize him. >> senator bush, the other night, a republican colleague of

yours, sitting in the same seat you are occupying now, had some rather rough things to say about what he called "the extreme right wing of the republican party." he said this wing was shackling the eisenhower administration's program and regime and it should stop. what is your comment on that? >> i noticed that mr. scott made remarks to that effect. my feeling was that they were a little severe and not entirely justified. i think that so often, votes down there take place on an area basis than a party basis. sometimes it gives the impression that there are dissidents who are making things difficult with the party. i don't want to deny the fact there have been republicans in both houses who have been a little bit reluctant to go along

with some of the administration's plans and congress' ideas. republicans will pretty much stand together on the important issues. brian: talking about a number of familiar names, including edward p. morgan who asked that question. he was sitting next to winston burdett. he is asking senator bush. never thought his family would be as dominant as it is. what is your reaction? donald: prescott bush is being questioned about the division and his party which was very strongly divided between the eisenhower wing and attacked wing. -- the taft wing. bush is somewhat straddling in this case, although he is defending the president. he is looking forward to having

members of both parties support the president. he was a very strong eisenhower supporter. eisenhower was the most avid golfer among all of our presidents. bush was the president of the pga. that helped them bond that way. brian: george herbert walker bush was in the senate for two terms. how often in history does this kind of thing happen where you have a dynasty? raymond: there are quite a few dynasties. some of the great names in early american history seem to pop up throughout history. lindy boggs was a claiborne going all the way back to the founding era. to some of the elders in new

orleans. there are a number of members. distinguished early families continue to send members to the house and senate for generations. brian: the longest-serving member of congress, 59 years or more, john dingle. he was preceded by a dingle and succeeded by a dingle. how do they stay their all that time? raymond: they liked them. donald: it's a brand name, too. hughie long's wife and son both

served as well. you get these dynasties that will continue for awhile. they have a certain shelf life. there is a certain period where the next generation doesn't quite make it. franklin roosevelt had sons who all went into politics and none of whom really rose to the level that people expected. joseph p kennedy was very frustrated in politics, and yet, his children went on to be very successful. so, the different generations experience politics in different ways. brian: that clip was from 1963. this next one is from 1964. this person has made an impact better known as margaret chase smith. >> will you be able to debate in

new hampshire? [laughter] >> now we have to start all over again on the debate. because two more have been added. [laughter] yes, i shall be very happy to go into a debate with the other candidates. it should be carried out as it was in may in 1948, when all four candidates entered the debate. i shall be happy to enter the agreement as long as all would be candidates go on the platform. brian: she replaced her husband in the house and then went over to the senate. a couple things come to mind. the debate part of this, back in 1948 -- raymond: who gets on the platform and how was it

arranged? we are going through that in 2016 all over again. it's all about how parties keep control of the candidates. during the primary season, the parties are the ones who are in control of the machinery. it's much more conducive to party control that it is when you're getting into the general election. it's a matter of party control more than anything. brian: what kind of a force was she in the senate? donald: she was running against a popular governor. she was the woman so she was the

odd person out. she needed to be included as well as other candidates which was what she was arguing for. she was the first serious woman candidate for presidential nomination. in the senate, she was the ranking republican on the armed services committee, from 1948 to 1972, a very respected senator. but she was often the only woman and often excluded. when prescott bush was head of the pga and became a senator, he planned to dinner at burning tree golf course. all of the senators and president eisenhower in 1953. after he got it all planned, he realized burning tree doesn't let women into their clubhouse. he went to margaret chase smith and asked if she would mind not attending. she said, of course i would mind. prescott bush had to go back to burning tree and ask to allow one woman in for one dinner if she promises to leave as soon as the dessert is over? that's exactly what they did.

donald: they don't allow women to play, only in the gift shop. raymond: even in the clip we just saw, margaret was wearing a rose. that was her brand. she always wore a french rose. she introduced a bill at one point to make the rose the national flower. it became quite a show. dirksen was from illinois and he wanted the marigold to be the national flower. he would get up in his eloquent manner and say all the beauty of the marigold far outweighs that of a mere rose. they would play that game for the longest time. they were good friends. that was a nice bit of humanity

on the floor of the senate. brian: hate to say this, when i came to this town, there was only one woman in the senate. how many women are there today? donald: there are 20. brian: what is your sense of women who are now members? donald: there has been a big change. most of the clerks in the senate are women. you look up in hte press gallery, at least half of the reporters in the press gallery are women. it used to be all men and women were excluded. women have brought different interests into the senate. there are different issues they are promoting. they have also brought more bipartisanship.

republicans and democrats get together more often socially as women. i think that has been an important addition. brian: when did it start to change in the house? raymond: not until the 1970's and 1980's. it has been a steady increase since then. brian: why did it change? raymond: i think more women are running for office. i think the electorate is changing. there is still a long way to go in both the house and the senate. brian: do you know how many are in the house? brian: i think there are a hundred and four in both but i'm not sure. donald: in the late 1970's, they interviewed a cross-section of people in the interviewed a lot of the pioneer women of the house. all would be put on the same committee.

dump them over there to keep them away from more important committees. one of the women said that she was on a committee whose german -- chairman was so old that he couldn't stand up or sit down. she understood what was going on. when they built the rayburn building, they built it only for men to use the gymnasium. there were no lockers for women. on the day it opened, an invitation was sent to all members of the house and women showed up in gym clothes to use the gym. they had to make a provision to

open it up. it took even longer to open the gymnasium in the senate to women. the institution has been very slow to accept that kind of change. brian: we have a chart to put on the screen. i want you to comment on this. this shows, -- the senate is the top and the house is the bottom. the main thing is, you can see that over the years, the republicans are red and the democrats are blue. what would you say that represents and the change over the years and the change in the parties? raymond: that charge shows a great dominance in the 19th century by the republican party and a swing to the democratic party in the 20th century. a mixed bag more recently.

one of the problems is, when we think of the parties, the parties in the 1860's and 1870's, the republicans of that area are nowhere near the same party as the party in the 1940's, 1980's, or in 2016. those charts are kind of misleading. they are useful barometers to see which party was in power. they don't tell you the issues. they just tell you the party control. both parties have changed dramatically. it used to be solid democratic south. and now that is the solid republican south for the most part. it has been a quite flip from the passage of the civil rights act. the parties ebb and flow and the chart shows that kind of a flow. the issues change and the party

the issues change and the party label does not always hold up the same. brian: the senate is on the top. when was the greatest disparity between the senate and house? raymond: in terms of numbers? brian: when would you not want to be the president when you were in the other party? raymond: the republicans had more and that is the great dividing line. in the 1890's, there was a terrible depression when the democratic party was in office grover cleveland. the republicans came in strong as the party of prosperity. they dominated politics and then they were out of office. herbert hoover was in and controlled both parties. franklin roosevelt came in with a democratic congress. for a very long time, it was all blue. democrats are the majority. and now we have parties does switch back and forth. in some respects, the hardest time for a president is when one party controls one house of congress and the other party controls the other half. because there are almost no way they can get together on any particular issue. in some cases, it is a little easier for the president if both houses are controlled by the opposition.

it forces the opposition party to take a stand and the president to veto legislation. and can also negotiate. bill clinton in his presidency was able to do better when he was negotiating with a republican dominated house and senate.

and so there are some odd situations. our system of government is complicated. the authors of the constitution did not want sudden changes, switches back and forth. you have to get the president to sign on and come board and the supreme court to uphold it. it is so complicated, it is amazing anything passed into law. it is more complicated if one has one house. and the other party controls the other. brian: the longest-serving speaker, sam rayburn, a building named after him. here is a video from his library down in texas. put sam rayburn in perspective. [video clip] >> for nearly 50 years sam rayburn represented the fourth the district in texas. for 17 years, he was the speaker, longer than anyone else. his fingerprints are on some of the most important legislation of the 20th century. legislation that brought economic equality. rayburn never forgot his roots as a cotton farmer in texas.

it was during truman's administration that rayburn clinched the record of the longest-serving speaker in history. in 1951, president truman presented his friend a gavel to commemorate. although the relationship was successful, conservatives in congress and the korean war [indiscernible] in 1952, the country elected world war ii hero general dwight d. eisenhower as president. the republicans won congress and rayburn was relegated to minority leader. two years later, the democrats regained control and rayburn returned to speaker's chair.

brian: 1913 to 1961, he was in the house. is that possible? donald: he was not speaker the whole time. his speakership was 17 years and was broken into several periods. he was not always speaker. he kept coming back and getting elected when the house democrats had the majority. he was one of the speakers, he really set the tone. the ultimate institution man. what i got there in the 1980's, there were a lot of people who remembered working with rayburn. and his mark on the institution was still very strong 20 years after he left. just in terms of his style of running to the house. his favorite saying to new members was "to get along, grow along."

follow your leaders. that does not always work. that was his advice to young the members. he was a great proponent of the new deal. and followed that with a harry truman's fair deal, the square deal. whatever you call it. [laughter] we had three deals. and it was a great leader in the house for harry truman. brian: he was diametrically opposed to young people having televisions in the house of representatives. he would not allow cameras in the hearings. why did the senate allow cameras? raymond: in the 1940's, they both initially allowed cameras. senators became famous, it was propelled forward because of the crime investigation, joe mccarthy becomes a huge figure.

the senators like the television time. many had presidential ambitions. in the house of representatives, rayburn was always shocked by that committee and thought that it should be abolished. he could never work it out. he was afraid if he gave it television time, they would become a circus. he created the rayburn rule which was no television in the hearings. watergate, for the first time, the house allowed a tv and the house judiciary committee was filmed in the impeachment proceedings against president nixon. that was part of the legacy of sam rayburn. this was before c-span. when tv was covering a hearing

they did not cover gavel-to-gavel. they had a couple of cameras. if somebody important came in, the lights came on. senator kennedy, ted kennedy came in and the lights came on. he spoke. as soon as he got up to leave, the lights went out. they were only going to show a two-minute clip at the most on the evening news. today, we are able to watch the entire hearing. brian: a clip from 1974, you will recognize this person and a milestone. her name is jordan. [video clip] barbara jordan: earlier today, we heard the beginning of the preamble of the constitution of the united states. we, the people, a very eloquent beginning. when that document was completed on the 17th of september, i was not included in that “we the people.”

i felt sometimes, for many years, i thought george washington and alexander hamilton left me out by mistake. through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decisions, i have finally been included in "we, the people." today, i am an inquisitor and i probably would not be fictional. my faith in the constitution has been completed. i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the devolution, subversion destruction of the constitution. brian: barbara jordan from houston. that's 1974, the watergate hearings. donald: barbara jordan, i just love that woman. such a marvelous member of the judiciary committee. and her eloquence was so important at that time because she just told it like it was

about the importance of the constitution and what president nixon was doing was violating the constitution. and no one said it better and no one said it clearer or with more force than she did. that is one of the magical moments in congressional history. brian: another factor is the impeachment, how often has that happened? raymond: very few. against presidents andrew johnson, richard nixon, and bill clinton. nixon is the one who if he had

not resigned would've been impeached and removed from office. the television was so important during that period because first you had the sam rayburn committee, the watergate committee. bringing witnesses forward and coming up with evidence and revealing what was going on and a huge fight if the nixon tapes would be made available as there was the evidence. coming after you with the house moving for impeachment, the public watched this and it really riveted the nation. i think it changed public opinion. it changed the public opinion about the president. it also changed public opinion about congress. congress has the highest approval ratings and the 1970's when it was going on. people got to see their members at work and they were serious. brian: you mentioned earlier about vice president agnew who had to resign as vice president. how often in history has that happened? raymond: two vice presidents. johnson calhoun, a political reason. we had vice presidents under a cloud.

both ulysses grant in the scandal that diminished their public standing. colfax was one and wilson. and so, there have been others but agnew certainly was one of the most dramatic falls from grace. brian: here is -- the question i want to ask before we get to the clip. the last eagle, the sherman anti-trust act -- i am -- the point of this is how often do names like this survive? bills that have been passed? can you think of others? i will show the clip in the minute. donald: not right now. [laughter] brian: i will give you time. let's watch this. this is where -- one half of

it. [video clip] >> it was written for one purpose, to restore justice and equality in management relations. it was not a new law, but a revision of the existing laws of the wagner act which were so one-sided on leaders' power over all of the largest employers. and even more important over their own members. these laws are written on sound principles. power formally exercised by employers. they were so broadly construed they gave no one, public or worker, any remedy against the union labor leaders no matter how unjust of those acts might be. brian: robert taft.

raymond: republican from ohio. he tried to balance -- during the new deal because the wagner act that allow unions to organize. it put a crimp into labor organizing. and it made taft very unpopular in some parts of the nation. he had presidential ambitions, his father howard taft was president. he tried. you can tell from the clip, he was kind of stiff and not the warmest personality. he was eventually overshadowed by dwight eisenhower who had a much more outgoing personality and a great military leader during the second world war. during his period when it was a leader in the senate, the republican had a slogan which was "let bob do it." anytime they had a problem, they

would say let bob do it. if it would require working all night, let bob do it. bob taft took on a lot of the projects. brian: that was 1947. he was the senator majority leader -- i gave you time. can you think of others? how about humphrey? were you around humphrey hawkins? donald: i don't remember. brian: well, the moral act. that is -- the act that is huge in terms of -- naming bills for people, that is usually because that person is chairman of the committee. quite often the real authors are lower-level members. the chairman is going to manage the bill, gets credit. and they have often said in congress, you can really accomplish a lot if you're willing to let somebody else that the credit.

-- get the credit. brian: what book would you recommend to somebody to read about congress other than don ritchie's which we talked about? donald: dick baker's new book on the american senate, which is winning a prize as we speak. certainly one of the finest pieces of work of the senate. there's not been as much done generally on the house. and i still like the old mcneil's "democracy" even though it was written in the 1960's. it captured a flavor. it is an anecdotal book. it is not really weighty.

the house has biographies of individual members or certain legislation and so there is no big censuses of the house done in recent times. brian: a man from the house, no longer alive he was in the house from 1953 to 1995. one of the many texans who had power. let's listen to jack brooks talk about lobbying. [video clip] jack brooks: i have been in this town now for 37 years. i've met representatives, public affairs specialists, vice presidents of congressional affairs, consultants, government relation executives, but never a lobbyist. 2 [applause]

because in this town according to contemporary literature, a lobbyist almost always, a special interest representative. is always your friend. brian: did you know jack brooks? donald: i did know jack brooks. when he was chairman of the judiciary committee and a short annotated version of the constitution, -- not a pocket constitution, but a more elaborate one. brian: is there anybody like him around today? donald: he was a really colorful character. he played his texas roots to the hilt. he could be funny. he was usually more often sarcastic and rough, but he played his role as mr. chairman to the hilt and was amazing character. he was also a workhorse. he was a real producer.

his role in the fiduciary committee was very, very important. raymond: my favorite story was when he was negotiating with ted kennedy over immigration. kennedy brought with him a box of very fine cigars and put them in the middle of the table. brian: cuban? [laughter] +>> i'm not sure, but very fine. every time brooks would concede a point, kennedy would a push to the box a little closer to him. every time brooks stood stern or objected, kennedy would pull the box back across the table.

it broke the tension and was one of those great moments where people can work together to try to figure out what kind of common ground we have. he was very well respected but a tough guy. you do not want cross him. brian: another moment in history i would like you to explain in the house of representatives from 1998. this former congressman bob livingston on the floor of the house. [video clip] bob livingston: and i can only challenge you in such fashion that i am willing to heed my own words. to my colleagues, my friends and my wife and family, i have hurt you all deeply and i beg your forgiveness. i was prepared to lead our narrow majority of speaker and i believe i had it in me to do a fine job. but i cannot do that job or be the kind of leader i would like to be under current circumstances. so i must set the example that i hope president clinton will follow, i will not stand for speaker of the house on january 6. brian: there was a lot dropped jaws. donald: that -- the context of

that was of course of clinton impeachment is going on. newt gingrich has just stepped down. and of course, newt rose in part on attacking the house of representatives for its many scandals and co-authored one book called "the house of ill repute." with a red light instead of the lady of liberty on top there was a red light. and so the party was in shambles through a large extent. the impeachment was going on. president clinton's sexual peccadilloes were all in the newspaper. and as newt exited, bob livingston looks like a good prospect. and he was. he was one of the finest members i ever knew.

but he also had an affair in his background he was confessing up to. and so he resigned the speakership and resigned from the house as a matter of principle and hoping his ethical standards would spill over onto president clinton and to others. it did not quite work out that way. that was a stunning moment on the floor of the house. brian: there could be a book on affairs and this town. do you have any views on why does this happen? raymond: in the 19th century and well into the 20th century newspaper reporters knew a lot about the private lives but never reported it. the rule of thumb was unless the private lives spilled over to impact their public lives, it was no one's business. they used to say every reporter in town was a graveyard of secrets of stories he was not

going to file. since the 1970's, people's private lives and public lives have converged together. anything is fair game in newspapers. gary hart was one of them. they turning point when he tells reporters to follow him and they do. it is not that they are more today than they were back then. people just do not report them. brian: time for one more clip. this is the man who as from senator from 1981 until 1989 and still alive and 77. a new yorker. his name is alfonse d'amato. he does his own little thing on the floor. [video clip]

>> how long do you think it would take a senator to read this? >> do not drop it. >> a lot of printing. you would think we would be out by sunset? >> i think we will be out for observance tonight. president clinton had a bill e-i-e-i-o and in that bill was a lot of pork. e-i-e-i-o it cost way to much and must be chopped. with a chop chop here and a chop chop there. chop that pork everywhere. e-i-e-i-o. mr. president. i thank you and yield the floor. brian: could you do that on the house floor, could a member of

congress sing? donald: i think they could sing, it might be out of order, but a lot of things like that go on. i cannot believe that was on the senate floor. it was like it was somewhere else. that was unusual. the fact they were standing at the podium talking to each other and not addressing the chair was a violation of parliamentary procedure. those two guys were quite a contrast. one of the greatest intellectuals ever to serve in the senate and alfonse d'amato who was flamboyant, colorful, in your face, populist guy. brian: one a democrat and one republican. raymond: alfonse d'amato was

concerned with local issues. the other was into the great international issues of the day. they were an interesting couple in the senate that way. they played up against each other as you can see in that clip. one thing cspan did to the senate did was bring posters. they are followed by somebody carrying an easel and posters because they want to illustrate their speech. usually, it is a graph or a chart or something conventional. in senate alfonse d'amato's case, it was a large, pink pig. that was really out of charactedr for the senate, just like his singing. he used to keep the senate in session late at night. sometimes all around the clock particularly that year he was running for reelection.

often on issues that had to do with constituents in new york and that helped them win his reelection. brian: both of you are retired from the government. what are you doing in retirement? donald: i am not retired. i run the robert c. byrd center. we have senator byrd's papers. he's the longest-serving senator in the united states history. and held more leadership positions than any other member of the united states senate. we study congress and the constitution. we are delving into his collections and other collections we have. brian: what are you doing? raymond: i have not retired from the history profession. i am still a historian and i'm doing research. i want to write more books. brian: we thank you for being here. for our audience, this has been a hodge-podge.

odds and ends, videos from the archives. don ritchie, historian emeritus from the united states senate. and the same for ray smock, former historian in the house. thank you for joining us. announcer: for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as c-span podcasts. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> if you enjoyed it this week's q&a, here are some other programs you might like. former senator richard baker talks about his role in history. and fred kaplan it talks about his book. and diane skvarla talking about

the senate. you can see these books -- interviews and others on q1 day. -- q&a. >> live at 3:15: these speaker talks about challenges facing his country. >> tonight, on the communicators, at this year's electronic show we met up with an author and asked him why he feels the internet is not the answer. rags the internet is not the

answer at the moment. it is lending itself to --, it is compounding the inequality of our economic lives. it is creating monopolies that were unimaginable in the 19th century. it is creating an economy where all internet users are packaged up and we are the product on face cup -- on facebook. it is like a big hitchcock movie. >> tonight, -- this morning washington journal reporter discusses how the clintons built their foundation. and then a talk about drug shortages in the united states and what that means for patient to health.

later, a look at the funding, training, and technology by screeners for the ♪ host: e-3 are washington journal for you today on june the eighth. as far as activity on the hill, the house could take up senate as that would give the president fast-track authority to a deals. on politico, it is story about the labor department. a possible role that could make changes to overtime for millions of american workers, giving them more. that is on politico's website. it was on the sunday shows. governor chris christie and new york mayor bill de blasio spoke about voting and the vot