sam rayburn and the energy since the oil and gas industry in texas. we do into speaks sometimes saying this matters enough to me that i want to pursue this. and they also do have to think about themselves getting re-elected. so, in addition to the issues that matter to them, there are sometimes things they do because if they don't do it might put them in danger of lieuing their -- losing their seat. the last speaker to lose re-election was tom foley in 1994. but speakers like other members know that they need to at least be ware of the possibility that they could lose re- election so they will pay attention to their districts and do things that might be particularly important to their own constituents, just like any other member of congress would. >> before tom foley, who was the last speaker who lost an election. >> guest: it was in the 19th 19th century. it had been real over 100 years before foley that the last speaker lost re-election. >> host: what makes a good speaker? in your view? >> guest: what makes a good speaker. i would say it's a combina

we have had speakers who have lived longer and past speakers who often died in house like sam rayburnbut we have had speakers who left office or either stay in the house, so they lost speakership like nancy pelosi, or they leave the house like newt gingrich and pursue other careers. i did not know of that there is a pattern with newt gingrich who remains a public figure and ran for president, but on the other hand, jim wright, who went into retirement and went to texas, tcu, helped develop his library, so there are different approaches that x speakers take, but this is a relatively new environment and it would be interesting to do a study on that to see where speakers go after they leave the speakership. host: tip o'neill did some television commercials. guest: [laughter] i forgot about that. you can do that, too. host: let's go to peter in kentucky. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. excerpt from a report that was written on adolf hitler by the office of strategic services back in the 1940's and i would like to attach it to the freedom caucus. i quote -- "his primary

historical research and found all these interesting stories about speakers going back to the 1940s and sam rayburn, and then i started thinking, well, if speakers matter, we need to really try to understand that, how do we know they matter? when can we say they're actually changing the outcome of a vote? and then also trying to understand why they do it. is it always because it's something their party wants or is it something else? and then based on my research i found something interesting, which is that speakers not only made a difference and do make a difference but they do things sometimes because they think it matters or the district they're representing thinks it matters or the president thinks it matters. even if their own party in the house of representatives doesn't think it matters. and so that became the basis of the book. >> host: could newt gingrich's speakership have been longer. >> guest: historical counterfactuals are different. hard to save it could have been longer. there was a way in which gingrich had a similar problem to speaker boehner which is a fairly large group of new you

sam rayburn and the energy -- oil and gas industry in texas. we do see speakers sometimes saying this matters enough to me that i want to pursue this. and they also do have to think about themselves getting re-elected. in addition to the issues that matter to them, there are sometimes things they do because if they don't do it might put them in danger of losinging their seat. this hasn't happened very often. the last speaker to lose re-election was tom foley in 1994. speakers like other members know that they need to at least be aware of the possibility that they could lose re-election. so they will pay attention to their districts and do things that might be particularly important to their own constituents just like any other member of congress would. host: before tom foley, who was the last speaker to lost election? mr. green: in the 19th century. i can't remember his name. it had been well over 100 years before foley that the last speaker lost re-election. host: what makes a good speaker? mr. green: what makes a good speaker? i would say it'

producing one major work of legislation but certainly at the top of that list i would have to be sam rayburn. >> what's the speaker's normal interaction with the senate? with the senate? that thet say that president has normal interaction with the senate. who is the speaker is, it varies by which party is in control of the house and is in patrol of control of the senate and percentage of importants of the speaker and senate leadership. there's an expectation that speakers have to have open communication with the leaders can't senate because you get legislation enacted without the senate's approval so to that is some kind of communication or relationship but the degree of closeness that there is between, say, the the senate or senate leaders will vary tremendously who the individual speaker is and who the leaders in the senate are. >> matthew green, who have been some of the least effective speakers? effectiveeast speakers. well, good question. there are certainly a host of speakers in the 19th century that didn't serve very doingnd aren't known for very much. and so you could put those on th

sam rayburn and the energy, the oil and gas energy. we do see speakers saying sometimes that this matters enough to me that i want to pursue this. they also have to think about themselves getting reelected. in addition to the issue that matters to them, they feel like if they don't do it will put them in danger of losing their seat. this doesn't happen very often. , but speakers, like other members need to be aware of the possibility they could lose reelection. >> before tom foley, who was elected? >> it was the 19th century. i can't remember his name. it has been well over 100 years since he lost the election. >> what makes a good speaker? >> i would say it's a a combination of a number of things. first i would say be a good listener. speakers have to because listeners. have to know what people are saying and if a member of congress says something if they really mean what they say or if there is something going on there. related to that is the district members of congress if you have someone in your party saying i can't support you on

to top that list, i would have to say, would be sam rayburn. peter: what is the speaker's normal interaction with the senate? wouldn't say the present speaker has a normal interaction with the senate. it varies by who the speaker is, which party is in control of the house and the senate. it depends on the personal personalities of the speaker and senate leadership. there is an expectation that speakers need to have an open line of communication with leaders in the senate because you cannot get legislation enacted without the senate's approval. to that respect, there is some communication or relationship. the degree of closeness that there is between the speaker and the senate or that leaders is going to vary tremendously by who the speaker is and who the members in the senate are. peter: who have been some of the least effective speakers? mr. green: least effective speakers, well, good question. there are certainly a host of speakers in the 19th century who didn't serve long and are known for doing much. you can put those on the list. if we wan

>> sam rayburn had a power centric reign as speaker of the house. this will not be that.changes with paul ryan? nothing. republicans have no clear path forward. francine: why was he reluctant to take the job? speaker will ruin his chances of becoming president? >> that is an element. the committee he was cheering was response ball for or tax writing care issues in the country. he thought he could do a lot there, most notably an overhaul of the u.s. tax system. not this was the way to do it. jobtically, it is a chaotic . ishe wants the future, this the position he takes. phil mattingly cannot explain this to an american audience either. one more question, royals or blue jays? >> i'm going royals. they will make it and daniel murphy will hit another 14 home runs. vonnie: your prediction direction -- your prediction record has been pretty good. >> i am like 0-30. tom: later this evening, dr. ben carson, editor ted cruz -- , a spiritedcruz conversation is expected. stay with us this morning. "bloomberg surveillance." ♪ tom: good morning. sunrise here in new york. francine: we

roberts: well, what happened was that, you know, sam rayburn had to be convinced. and at least my family's story is that my father went to him and said, "do you want richard nixon to win?" caroli: exactly. roberts: there you are. swain: on beautification, conservation, her cause, how did she choose it? caroli: well, first of all, it was a heartfelt thing. but, you know, in that first year in the white house, the year that they had the rest of the kennedy term, she didn't choose a project. she didn't even change the curtains that needed changing because she said the next family might not like it and she acted as though that would be the last year in the white house. but then, after lyndon johnson won so big in 1964, she sent out, really, requests for advice on what she should do. and the word came back that she, like other first ladies, should do something about washington. and the beautification of washington really came out of that. but very quickly, i think it became clear that her committee -- her beautification, people had split, and some wanted to go more nati

professor greene: well, the first one it comes to minas sam rayburn, who was speaker from 1940 until the early 1960's. he was a prominent speaker in part because he lasted so long. he served often on for 20 years. it's very rare to have a speaker last as long as that. certainly not more than two or three terms. was a rare speaker and that he understood the house in which he served, and he understood what it was that motivated members of the house of representatives. he really had what you might call a feel for the chamber, and that made it possible for him to get a lot done as speaker because he knew what was possible. he understood the art of the possible in congressional politics. some major legislation that was enacted during that time was enacted during his civil rights legislation, legislation related to world was in many ways one of the most effective and best known speakers of the house of representatives. we've also had recent speakers who have demonstrated considerable effectiveness. newt gingrich in his early years, particularly first 100 housereally turned the into a real

and that's what the really great speakers, tip o'neill, sam r rayburn and people like that have done.> duno you think we will see a play -- if he buckles, i think this crisis is resolved in the short-term. if he doesn't, all bets are off. the question becomes, do you imagine, since the entire house votes for the speaker, it's an office of the house, can you see a situation in which democrats vote for republican speaker, so they have leverage in who it is? >> that has actually happened in several states. and in texas, a more moderate republican was elected speaker with democrat votes. he had about 30% of his own caucus, and all of the democratic caucus, and he got elected speaker. so that could happen. and i think, that's probably what needs to happen, because you've got 40 or 50 incredibly intransigent people who have got their own view s ahead of the views of the country. >> and you also have these folks, and it occurs to me, they don't seem particularly concerned. there doesn't seem any kind of gravitational force that is bearing on them that they feel like they have to buckle to an

at 12:40, sam rayburn extend forward toes a mr. the oath to lynn doon.he first time a speaker had ever sworn in a vice president but no one would disagree with the appropriateness of the choice. holding a bible, given to him by his mother, used nine times before as a member of congress, lyndon baines johnson officially became the 37th vice president of the united states. later, at an ball, jacqueline kennedy's mother danced with johnson and told her daughter he was very gallant, courtly, she liked him very much. in many ways, this day was the high point of lyndon johnson's vice-presidency. the office was a dismal trap. in the past, when johnson found himself in sub bother indiana polices he was able -- subordinate positions he as able to use his tall thrown his advantage. either he became a favorite son, using a senior's technique and basking in the attention or making the post into something more powerful and prestigious than it ahead been before but the vice-presidency has limitations. the author of the constitution intend the holder of the office to b