charles strozier on letters between abraham lincoln and his friend. >> for two men to talk about their everlasting love for each other was normal and encouraged to be expressive about intimacy and connection and even love, and i think that is the way to see this relationship. as long as the boundary against sexuality was strictly maintained. >> for our complete american history tv schedule, go to www.c-span.org. "washington journal" continues. north dakota congressman kevin cramer, a republican at our table this money, member of the energy and commerce , here to talk about the paris climate deal, which will come up on president trump's trip overseas, which begins today. you wrote in the wall street journal, remake the paris climate agreement u.s. energy. you said you were against the paris climate deal but you changed your mind for two

reasons. tell us done. newt: first, with a negotiator at the table, i like our chances of having an american first global accord rather than a global forest -- the global first. the fact that we have 195 countries around this table, and they range from developing countries to developed countries, it seems like there were responsibilities, as the exceptional country at the table, and opportunity for the united states and united states business to be at that table and influence global energy policy ourat the same time sell products, goods and technologies as part of the solution for many other countries. the export opportunities and diplomatic ones seem too great to turn down. host: what part of the deal do want him to renegotiate? guest: i think we start with the pledge, that is to say the 26%

to 28% reduction pledge. it seems unrealistic. i think it disadvantages the united states when you consider that other countries have much more modest pledges, and in some cases, like china, they continues to increase their co2 emissions and greenhouse gas omissions under this deal. we have to have the deal that does no harm to the u.s. economy and policy. second, no more money to the as wefund until such time are satisfied, but we have already put $1 billion into it read we need to freeze that and he is pledged -- into it. we need to freeze that india's pledged to do it -- and he has pledged to do it. in other countries' solutions, they might involve clean coal, natural gas, ag efficiency -- ge

efficiency technologies, so there are a lot of opportunities if we insert our influence in the accord, rather than step away. host: when it comes to fossil fuels, what do you want the language to say? is better.ink less in other words, we should not take any field of source at the table -- fuel of source off the table. i will be the biggest thing that a moreay is to have transparent process at home as we work with stakeholders and consumer groups and environmental groups, has to the -- as to what reasonable standards ought to be, but i think not choosing the winners is the best way to go, and rather set some realistic goals and use technology to advance those goals. al,might involve co

wind, solar, gas. hopefully, it would involve nuclear. the inventors of uranium enrichment we now do not even do it in this country. host: for your state of north dakota, what would it mean if it is not renegotiated in the terms you would like to see? guest: great question. i would like to put it in this context because one of the legal arguments -- much of this, besides the political arguments, geopolitical argument, is the political argument, do we had -- thedability to ability to negotiate? if we do not, we should get out of it. the clean power part is a far more egregious policy to the people of north dakota with the low-cost and highly reliable electricity in our region. of us to have that type

picking of the winners and losers, the shutting down of coal really is far worse, but the paris accord allows us -- north korea, as an example, not only do we have a lot of coal, do we sell a lot, but we have technology to clean it up, everything from mercury, particularly matter and -- particular matter and making it more efficient. technologies within our utilities that have the types of solutions available to the world , so there is a lot of opportunity. host: what about oil? guest: oil is not used much in order to generate electricity, but it is a motor fuel and used for lots of other products. it raises an important point beyond fossil fuel and energy. in order to meet some of the standards or emissions goals we have set, you cannot do that

just with shutting down coal plants. that means we go to the next generation. that means manufacturing, so you look at the paris accord where china doesn't have to meet the same standards as we have, and china subsidizes their trade sensitive manufacturing products and we put our manufacturers and a disadvantage. are the number two producer of oil. we have seen a spike lately because of the dakota access pipeline. prize has been around $50 and we would like to see it higher and stabilized. by the way, we just sent our first shipment of oil to asia. if you are at the table and you are sitting with 195 other countries that have growing demands, the opportunities were our products, including oil promote accord the, -- from north dakota are great. democrat, hi,

lisa. caller: mr. cramer, you sound very reasonable. i am sure your state looks somewhat like mine. it is kentucky and we have coal mining. i am not in total disagreement with coal mining. the mountaintop removal. i would like to hear what you have to say on that. also, we just relaxed on having .he runoff go into our streams our state is beautiful. i would love to keep it that way and that would like to hear your thoughts on that. guest: thank you, lisa. you raised important points. the first i would say is the distinction between the prairie "mine we do in north dakota with incredible reclamation. most of the reclamation areas are more productive and every bit as beautiful as the land prior to mining. in the mountains, it is different, or the mountaintop or

the underground mining that we are more familiar with from a television standpoint, at least. therein lies one of the problems inh many of the regulations the last several years. that is there is this one-size-fits-all regulatory regime that doesn't recognize the different geology is, geographies, terrain of our country. lisa raises what is called the stream detection buffer zone will, a rule finalized in the bush administration, a lawsuit at the beginning of the obama administration that resulted in a review of the role and a much more stringent rewrite. an appellation oriented rule that have no montana, to wyoming, north dakota and other states. as a result, we pushed back strongly. one of the congressional review acts that repeals midnight rules

or late roles in the previous administration was to repeal that offers a role. they will continue to work on it but it will not be this one size fits all job killing rule that we repealed. host: an independent in ventura, california. you are on air. caller: i would like to ask mr. kremer when he thinks about the sanctions with russia because that is going to open up all of that oil and i think it is an absolute travesty. largermaybe even a context, whether it is sanctions against russia or opening up iran, allowing iran to someone oil in the global market -- for so more oil in the global market, we produce a lot of oil. the reason prices are low is because we produce more than any given time.

that is the trend of commodities. the difference is because of the shale revolution in places like north dakota and other parts of the u.s., we are the big producer, so countries like russia, saudi arabia -- where the president is heading for now glut,now are part of the so as we manage all of this, the nice thing about the united states dean in the global market is we had the stabilizing force. it costs more to produce oil out of rock than sand, but here lies the opportunity using oil and natural gas. perhaps more so natural gas, which you have in abundance here, to have an influence in geopolitics. i would rather use the peaceful tools of oil and gas production and energy production than the weapons of war. countries keep like russia in check, is to make

sure we are the from the provider or alternative to much of europe for our fossil fuels. i think there are a lot of opportunities here. host: the sierra club responded to not only your pc work in the wall street journal whether u -- your piece you wrote in the wall street journal, but your comments on the climate deal and they know that over 70% of americans support this and you received a large amount of money in the election. as any proposal to weaken our commitment to the paris agreement, will not only breakup promises and undermine our ability to lead around the world, but it will rather the climate crisis and threaten our environment. the u.s. commitments are not a political pawn to be exploited the local gang. guest: [laughter] they do not have an agenda, certainly. fairness and full

disclosure, north dakota is the second largest producer of oil in the country and we are in the top 10 of coal producers. that is my constituency and it would be weird if i did not support them and it would be weird if they did not support me. that is full disclosure. that said, i think this is a narrow view. just as narrow as the view that we should get out of paris altogether because we do not agree with someone else on climate change. there is a broad belief, anywhere from climate change is americans are summer in the middle. host: are you in the middle? guest: for me, it doesn't matter. that is my point. people want a solution. they say, 70% with disdain the accord for various reasons. ge once is in the accord and several oil and gas companies and some do not. i understand that. that is why i am trying to find

a middle ground that recognizes the political reality and says that its influence this to the american economy and demonstrate responsibility and opportunity. many of these other countries have, as part of their solution, clean coal, natural gas, whether it is a bridge fuel or something else. in order to have clean coal and natural gas, in many cases what you need is technology. what you need is an innovation that happens in our country. i do not see a reason we cannot accomplish our goals. one of the problems with a peace treaty like that is it presumes of every winner, there has to be a loser. i reject that notion. sometimes we cannot multiple winners. host: len is in new york, democrat. caller: you can hear me? host: go ahead. i flew in from florida to new york last night, and the

only thing i could see that fossil fuels are used for right now would be for a rocket or a plane to get off the ground. i knewtioned wheat, environmental protection agency has just allowed -- our new environmental protection agency has just allowed the pesticide. you are talking about clean coal . china has -- i do not know how many million people working in the solar industry now -- can you say the word solar? are you looking for an opportunity to see north dakota look like oklahoma in the future with more earthquakes than california at this point because you have cracked through the crust of the earth? host: congressman? .uest: that is a lot of stuff

of course, i was a utility regulator for nearly 10 years, so i looked at all energy sources. although solar is a big in north dakota, wind is. host: not a lot of sun. guest: certainly. but, we have a couple thousand acre lots. i think there is 150 million megawatts of wind plant for north dakota in the next two years. we use clean coal technology. we have innovated much of it in north dakota. whatever the energy source -- i am not taking it -- i am saying if you -- i am not picking it -- it you have a more opaque process that came up with the 20% reduction the paris accord or -- 28% reduction in the paris accord or something that considers security or

reliability of our great system, so in new york, if we were to shut down the coal that generated electricity, we would find out electricity isn't generated in the wall by mice. there has to be a way to do it. fort is growing more food our growing population on shrinking land requires technology. unless of course most of the people would not be able to afford their food, so there are lots of opportunities for middle ground and for multiple winners rather than taking one source over another. host: william in virginia, independent. caller: congressman, the question for you is how do you balance between economic opportunity and clean environments? it sounds like republicans are more focused on economic opportunity, whereas the

democrats are saying, the other way. how do you find a middle ground that we, the people, can understand the impact of environments and economic opportunity together? thank you. guest: thanks for the question because i think william illustrated what most americans want, and that is finding the balance. this is what the letter that several of my colleagues from the energy commerce committee signed onto, and that is finding the balance between economic opportunity and environmental stewardship. one of the things we should be encouraged rise over the past few decades, we have seen our environments cleaned up in this and otherile coal commodities have grown and reduced, but -- and but even during the cold booms

-- coal booms, we saw a reduction in mercury. the difference then was there was balance, to william's points, because stakeholders, which included environmental groups and the industry, or together on things. we have gotten to where there andtwo sides and a daig in there's not enough discussion and that is what i am trying to facilitate with the paris accord. host: i went to go back to your earlier comments on russia and can play.il and gas their stories in the wall street journal, u.s. probes russia's grip on citgo. they have amassed debt backed by a near controlling stake in citgo, the houston-based subsidiary of a company, and the prospect is

seen as likely by u.s. officials on wall street and they would be in a position to engineer a takeover. it has sparked concern in the state department's and capitol hill. the company could sit to gain control of citgo's energy assets, including the u.s., which includes nine pipelines and nearly 50 petroleum platforms. guest: i had not seen that story but i'm familiar with the concept and this situation and not just with citgo. roughly one third of what they were finding capacity in the united states is owned by vertically integrated foreign companies. i am not a complete protectionist. on the other hand, we are no longer dependent on foreign oil to be brought in. if you are going to sell in the global market, you want our market available to the global. i think it is important we watch things like this carefully.

that isn't opec commission bill i have introduced. i introduced it last session and reintroduced it. it will be interesting and the president comes back from saudi arabia and g7 to talk to him about when he thinks we ought to be doing us an american first, globally responsible energy country if we can look up policies that keep a close eye on this. not saying we do not let anybody else's oil. our consumers want the lowest price. at the same time, alre they playing fair in the global marketplace? whether it is manipulating price by supply, and whether their business dealings are straight up, we need to be careful. i do not want to overreact either. host: have you talked to the president since he was sworn in? guest: probably three or four times but it is harder.

but i know his team very well. i know this energy team well. my responsibility as a congressman -- and this is what i told him after being elected -- i want to share in your vision for america firstenergy policy and i will do whatever i can to do that area that is where i focus -- that. that is what i focus in the house. host: you could have to reconsider the health care bill. this is a headline in bloomberg -- the house needing to vote again on the obamacare repeal bill -- and that is because of what the congressional budget office might say about its effects. guest: i think there is about a 0% chance that will happen. what i think it is referring to is the rules that require it to billion dollar reduction in deficit and if it doesn't do that, it does not meet the requirement. if that should happen -- which

it will not, because the original score of the hundred 37 billion in reductions is not going to be changed by more than 335 billion dollars because of the amendments at the end. i think there is a zero chance he will not meet that rule. we would have to go back to the drawing board anyway because would have to amend it to meet the requirements, but we are not after $2 billion. we are after a fair bit more than that, so i'd be surprised if that happened. host: energy and commerce them across tweet this out -- this is why you should not try to pass a major legislation without a cbo score. guest: we did have a cbo score. endfew amendments at the did not have that much impact on the score. host: tony is next in illinois, a republican. i was wondering if we

would entertain the idea of going back to fracking? guest: we do fracking. we do it quite well in places like north dakota. but for fracking, we would not be the energy superpower we are. pipelined the keystone as an example, we're reading about citgo and venezuela's role, the pipe down to the gulf coast to some refineries displaces venezuelan heavy crude, but fracking produces that sweet crude in places like the balkan and west texas. fracking has proven to be safe. it has never had a negative impact on water, so fracking is alive and well. host: what would happen -- the president had a meeting with the colombian president yesterday and what came up was venezuela and the situation with their political situation and economic

one. what would happen if the united states does not get involved with the situation in venezuela with oil and gas industries around the world? guest: i do not know for sure. i am not an expert on that, but when they became a petro state, one of the things they did was make themselves dependent on this one commodity, much like saudi arabia has done and although saudi arabia is trying to diversify, venezuela does not have the stability in the government to do that. i spoke earlier about the russian situation, the use of peaceful tools of commerce rather than weapons of war, one of the ways to choke venezuela off is to hurt their market and the globe for oil. they are part -- they are the bad guys in the regime, if you wrote. beyond that, i am not an expert

on the geopolitics of south america. host: in florida, jimmy is watching, democrat. caller: good morning! a pleasure seeing you, greta, and thank you, sir, from north carolina, great job. i appreciate north carolina compared to saudi arabia and russian oil. .ood job that mountaintop removal and protecting our streams, and obamacare. -- obama was part of that paris agreement. that should be followed through. thank you. guest: thank you, jimmy. first, it is north dakota. we are nothing alike in many

ways. [laughter] some, -- while he has got obviously democratic views, at the same time, he sees opportunity in the balance. i wish democrats in north dakota for this nice to me. -- where this nice to me. [laughter] host: virgil, republican. caller: good morning. i think what we must remember is that venezuela is in the situation they are because of the opinions and the positions they have taken that government must be supreme and government must be the end-all answers to the problems that the country faces. i think we are in a lot of danger in america of taking that same position that government must be the management of all our resources, and i think ultimately, that will affect energy, health care, what have

you, and i think it is a dangerous view and we need to get more away from governments being the end-all answer. guest: thanks, virgil, i agree with you. as is anthe same extreme example of that. venezuela is an extreme example of that. they set themselves up for failure and that is what they are experiencing. this is another area where the new administration takes a different view of things. management, blm poor management i think, robbing the taxpayers from opportunities to generate revenue and do it in a responsible manner. that is getting back to the issue of balance. we need to find a balanced way to manage resources because there are hundreds and billions

of dollars of taxpayer owned resources. we need to be able to exploit those for the benefit of our country and our taxpayers. do youwo questions, what think about the appointment of the special counsel to investigate russian interference in our election? did you agree that the president should have fired former fbi director james comey? guest: i do agree with that. it would have been better than later. had he not then it now, six months from now, if the fbi was in further disarray under poor leadership, he would have been criticized for not doing it sooner. there's no way he can win that with democrats. yes, i think it was appropriate for all the reasons laid out in mr. rosenstein's memo. counsel,rds to special i think it is an overreaction early on the one hand because there is no evidence of crime, or collusion between russia and the campaign.

that said, mr. rosenstein's explanation makes some sense in that this has become an extraordinary large political issue that to take it and give it more independence, hopefully rebuild confidence in the justice department this way and the outcome, so by the way, bob mueller is the perfect choice. his reputation is stellar and his capacity is any good. he will do a good job. i think the people will trust the outcome when it is over. to be honest, while i think it some areach, i think relieved because hopefully we can focus on the important work we had to do that isn't the fbi and russian probe. host: we appreciate the conversation. thank you. guest: my pleasure. host: when we come back, we will open up the phone lines. you can continue this discussion on politics or energy policy,

all of that on the table as we go to open phones for the remainder of today's "washington journal. -- "washington journal." ♪ >> sunday night on afterwards, journalist stuart taylor examines campus sexual assault policies in his book "the kansas rape frenzy." mr. taylor is interviewed by editor in chief of the national law journal and legal times. >> share to the viewers, what is your general thesis that we're looking at? be looking at when we open the pages? >> there has been a huge myth that has taken root that there is an epidemic of campus rape, there is a culture of campus rape that is condoned by the administrators, that it is out of control, increasing, that it

is worse on campus than off-campus and it requires demolishing all due process with presumption of innocence for the accused people, 99% of them are male. this comes from extreme feminists, male-hating in some cases, but pushed ahead by the obama administration. sundayh "afterwards" night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on -- booktv.ook tv >> saturday on booktv, coverage of the maryland book festival. starting at 10:00 a.m., maria olson on her book. of10:35, author whistleblower at the cia, an insider's account to inside his intelligence. sharon weinberger at 12:15 discusses her book, the imagine

years of war, the untold story of darpa, the pentagon agency that change the world. at 1:15, craig shirley on reagan rising, 1976 to 1980. at 2:15, sidney blumenthal, author of wrestling with his angels, the political life of abraham lincoln. at 3:15, sally mark freeman on , a missingbrothers naval officer in the pacific and his family's quest to bring him home. watch our all-day coverage of the gaithersburg, maryland book festival saturday at 10:00 a.m. .astern on c-span2's booktv >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open phones. your thoughts on any debates happening around the country, we will go to chris