>> next, "newsmakers" with maryland senator ben cardin. then, the senate hearing on combating isis. then, we will show you king abdullah's speech to the european parliament. susan: i guess on "newsmakers" this week is maryland senator ben cardin. center, we are glad to have you on "newsmakers" this week. senator cardin: glad to be here. susan: let me introduce the reporters. burgess everett of politico. niels lesniewski 50 of cq roll

call. neil fewer first. -- you are first. niels: they are shaping up to be some competitive house races for the senate vacating their seed. first of all, do you have any plans to endorse anyone in the senate race. secondly, do you have any sort of advice for people who may be looking to seek that senate seat on how to avoid a situation where the democratic party fractures? senator cardin: first of all, i'm using senator mikulski costs words to make sure that -- we will have some adjusting primaries in the house of representatives. senator mikulski has an

incredible career. she still has two more years in office. what a legacy she has led. it has created a live edges and her seat. we have a great bench. i great delegation of people interested in running for a seat. i think we will have a competitive primary. the competitive primary to me could be very healthy for the democratic party. we wanted to be positive. we want to focus on the person's vision of the united states senate, and let the democratic voters nominate the best. i can assure you, senator mikulski and i will do everything to make sure that c is held by our democratic nominee. niels: if i can just follow up quickly on that. do you think it really matters or if voters should take into account where in the state these various candidates may come from. i know that is something always comes up in maryland politics. someone from montgomery county versus baltimore, prince georges

county whatever. how much of that played to people's consideration? senator cardin: i think marylanders will want to have the very best in the united states senate. i expect -- certainly, geography comes into play as well as other factors. at the end of the day, the person who works the heart is, presents the best platform vision for our state and country will be the nominee. i think it will be competitive by the end of the day, the person who runs the best campaign and presents the best program and has the best qualifications will be our nominee. burgess: governor o'malley give a wonky speech yesterday in d.c. on his tenure driven in the government. i'm wondering, do you think he could offer a credible challenge to hillary clinton? senator cardin: governor o'malley, i think did the job as manager of our stay, as governor. he had a accountability system

where he held agencies to have results. he had a strong vision in our state to improve education and he did. he did to improve the environment and he did to make our ever structure first class. i think you has a great record as mayor of baltimore city and governor of maryland. hillary clinton is clearly the front runner for our party's nomination. governor o'malley understands that. again, there's a lot of time between now and the primary. burgess: it sounds like you were fond of having a competitive primary for the senate's ecology think there should be a competitive primary for the presidential see as well? senator cardin: there's nothing like a presidential primary. it's not like the primary for the senate. it's a specific date will we determine who are nominee will be.

the primary season for the presidential stands a great deal of time with concentration on a few states in the beginning. my guess is we won't know kind of early in the process, are not -- are nominee. that is how the process works. different than the u.s. senate. niels: i want to pivot toward foreign policy, which is one of the areas that is certainly well within your purview on the foreign relations committee. starting off with just the big picture question for democrats with the potentially looming criminal indictment that seems like it will be forthcoming against your ranking member on the committee, senator robert menendez of new jersey. you are someone who is sort of right near him in seniority.

senator boxer, having the seniority, but having another full committee to deal with an epw. how much you think this will become an issue, specifically or even in general, when this has happened in the past on the republican sidee, people have had to step aside from roles. what's your take on how that my all play out? senator cardin: i think you will hear from democrats or republicans that senator menendez did and i sell job as chair of the senate foreign relations committee and has done an excellent job as ranking member. he has been able to bring people together. he has raised critical questions that i think the u.s. senate should raise. he took very strong -- he is a very strong, effective member of the u.s. senate. nothing has come down. i will not speculate. we will see when things occur

if things occur. all we can do at this point is read information in a newspaper. there shouldn't be any leaks. the investigato is being done. nthere's nothing, about. -- nothing to comment about. niels: you just as we had a hearing with the administration leadership on the proposed authorization for the use of military force against the isis terry gou. -- terror group. what are the prospects of anything at all coming through the senate? senator cardin: i am hopeful that we will be able to pass an authorization for the use of military force. i agree with secretary kerry's

comments and secretary carter's comments that this nation is stronger when we speak with a united voice. i think there is strong support in the u.s. congress with the mission of helping iraq and syria deal with its concerns with the growth of isis, and that we need to be helpful. we don't want to put our ground troops there but the u.s. needs to provide the leadership to not only degrade, ball ultimately -- but ultimately destroy, isis. that is done by empowering syrians and others to take care of their own country. that is what our game plan is about and what are military is doing. the senate foreign relations committee, last year, passed an authorization for the use of military force. they received the vote of every field democrat -- everything will democrat on the committee.

the president had asked for specific authorization for use of military force. the president has now done that. i think what we passed in the senate foreign relations committee should be the basis for what congress and max. it complies with everything will need that the secretary of defense mentioned before our committee yesterday. that is a clear indication that we are united in supporting the president and give him the right to continue the military operations that he is doing today. it gives them the flexibility, if circumstances change, to meet those needs. it also gives him time until the next the administration to work on what should be the longer-term needs if we need to use our military going forward. the three points that i raise, i think are the three points the need to be dealt with. that is that the authorization did not do anything about the 2001 authorization that was passed to give the president the right to use military against

the terrorists who attacked our country on september 11, 2001. i think most americans would be surprised to know that the authorization for force is still being used. it is the longest authorization for force and effect in the history of america. longer than the vietnam war, the revolutionary war, world war ii. i think we would be hard-pressed to say you could use the authorization against isis, and yet, this a administration has interpreted it that way. i want to address 2001. myself and another senator have introduced legislation so that the new authorization will come in with a new authorization of use of force your the second issue is the issue ground troops. the president has made clear that we will not have ground troops in this campaign. let's make sure the authorization says that.

the current authorization leaves open the use of ground troops. i think we will want to make sure that is tighten before we pass an authorization for the use of military force. lastly, what are the associate groups that you could use military force, it may not be directly isis -- that needs to be clarified. i'm hopeful that we can reach consensus in congress and pass an authorization for the use of military force. i think it is our responsibility to do that. burgess: 47 of your republican colleagues sent a letter to address the iranian leadership basically intended to undercut the presence negotiating ability as he gets down to the last two days of this nuclear arms negotiation with iran. how concerned are you that that letter will affect the ability to do that? senator cardin: first of all, i really did not understand how that letter could have been sent. it is not in the tradition of u.s. senate. any individual center can do

what he -- senator can do what he or she wants to do, but that letter undermines the united states, the president's ability to negotiate on behalf the united states. that was certainly something that never should have happened in u.s. politics. it was clearly partisan. no question about it. and not helpful to know rich taking place in regards to the iran nuclear capacity. it is something that was not helpful. i think we have to move forward. clearly, the bad guys and all this is iran. let's make sure iran does not become a nuclear weapon state. i know the president has some very difficult negotiations in the next two weeks, and he should have had the full support of u.s. congress in doing that. i'm very disappointed in that letter being sent. burgess: you are one of the democrats that has singled -- signal support for congress to

weigh in. you have signed on to letters saying we may consider this after march 24, but before then we will not vote for them. do you think the letter has affected that group but democrat support for these two bills? senator cardin: i think has made the environment in the senate much more partisan on these issues than they should be. there should not be that partisan division. this was clearly a partisan effort by an overwhelming majority of republican senators. it does make it more challenging. the bottom line is congress is engage. d. we oppose the sanctions. there are statutory sanctions imposed on iran. the only way they can be removed is by congressional action. congress will have to get involved is an agreement is reached with iran, and we should get involved. there is an appropriate role for the executive and the legislative branches in this.

you don't change the rules two weeks before the deadline for an agreement. clearly, it was not helpful to bring this issue up this close to the deadline. once we have an agreement, if we have an agreement, i think congress will have to take -- have to be involved in an interview. lastly, on additional sanctions, i don't think there is any disagreement here. if iran does not enter into an agreement, there will be additional sections, and the present united states will be the first apostle sanctions. niels: odyssey, i will not as for the specifics on this but how much of senators been briefed by secretary kerry or others on how those negotiations are going and how much do you expect to know about what the outcome will look like before there is some sort of public announcement by the d5 plus one?

senator cardin: thank you for the question. the people of this country should know that the members of congress have been routinely briefed on the status. those on iran and the support we are receiving from the international commiunity. what type of capacity iran has. those questions are very much asked and answered in and classified setting, and we have been briefed on the status. i will have conversations today in regards to the status of the negotiations. it is done on a regular basis. clearly, negotiations need to be kept confidential. the classified nature of our discussions are very important. you get a sense that in most negotiations, the frameworks are taking place, you don't know the specifics and reactions. you have to be there to

understand that. our bottom line is this -- i ran cannot have the capacity to breakout nuclear weapons and a short. of time. there has to be their vacation, inspections, and consequences if it tries to violate any proposed agreement. we have to be confident that that is taking place. in our discussions, i think the members of congress have made that clear and quite frankly the administration understands this and has acknowledged that an acceptable agreement must include all of those provisions. susan: let me bring you back to isis or isil. the habit pieces written recently listening to the public briefings of military official saying that tone has changed. there is more pessimism about the level of threat. i'm wondering what you can tell the public about the scope of the threat from isis, and what the medium and long-term looks like in our and our allies fight

against them. senator cardin: we have been in this campaign for a little over half a year. in the last couple months, i think we have seen significant progress in containing isis s advancement. we know they receive rev enues from the territories they control, as well as oil, and the activities such as kidnapping and ransom. we believe that in every one of those categories, they have cut off -- then cut off significantly on their support base. we have been making progress in doing that. we do know they are still recruiting large numbers. we know about the foreign fighters. that is an issue that really needs to be dealt with. in iraq, the key is to empower the population to control its

own destiny. that means you need to have a much stronger relationship with the sunni population and tribes. so that they can controlled her own territory and isis is not controlling it. we have made some progress, but that battle still continues. it is a major concern that we do and able the iraqi sunnis to take control their own destiny. in syria, it is much more difficult. we also have the problems of the assad regime. we are relying upon other arab countries in the region to help us with the training missions of the opposition that will fight isis in syria. that is in the process of being really geared up. it is way too early to tell the prognosis. bottom line is that america and our international partners, which contain many arab states in the region, are committed to

degrading and destroying isis. it will take a long time. it will not be done in a matter of months. we are determined and we will win. burgess: senator, i know you oppose the keystone pipeline in january. since then, we have not really seen -- we saw the senate gets stuck on the department of homeland security funding. recently, there has been a ugly fight over this bipartisan human trafficking bill which seem to have bipartisan unanimous support, but came to the floor over an abortion issue. how good of a job is s mitch mcconnell doing? senator cardin: i'm not going to judge the senator.

i was extremely disappointed that he started with keystone. i think everyone will agree that it is not the major issue of our time. why was he not star with immigration reform, for example? we know we have issues on the border, we know our immigration reform system is broken. it could be a very healthy debate in the u.s. senate on immigration reform. to me, that would have been the way to get started on a real serious debate that the american people understand we have to resolve, and we have differences. he chose keystone. at its best, has a very minimal impact on the energy policy in this country, and at worst, it's very damaging to the country. my point is that he did not set the right priority. we have to get a budget done. there has been a lot of discussion back-and-forth on a bipod -- bipartisan budget. it's not just about today it's bipartisan decision making on

issues. what americans want is more predictability from washington. set up the atmosphere where we can really understand each other and find common ground, and that is not taken place you in the senate. burgess: your party criticized the republicans when they are in the minority for blocking bills from being debated, even when they are on the senate floor, and they were the source of gridlock. how do you, in the minority, feel keeping senate moving forward. i think a lot of people were surprised that the dhs will did not even -- bill did not even go to debate. senator cardin: with republicans , what they were trying to do was outrageous. they were holding up the department of homeland security because they were having

argument with the president on some immigration provisions. that was not the right vehicle. we use the power of the minority, i think effectively for the security of the country and we won the argument. i think we use the process of appropriately to get results. we set right way we are not going to use actions to take on controversial issues. we are happy to have it open and fair debate. emigration. bring it to the -- immigration bring it to the floor. we are ready to have that debate. i think you will find the democrats in the minority want to have debates before the u.s. senate. we want to have the issues that are important to the american people debated. our budget, transportation system, what we will do to make education affordable, what are we doing to close the wage gap in america. what are we doing to improve the

health care system? let's have a robust debate. if it is going be more about the aca or immigration -- niels: something you have mentioned couple times now that is coming up in coming weeks is that the republicans are planning on bringing to the floor a budget resolution. in some ways, this is an example of how the roles have reversed. specifically, on the budget resolution what's the democratic caucuses strategy going to be, in terms of offering what some might call gotcha amendments, where people who are watching c-span will see the senate floor on until 2:00 or three luck in the morning in a few weeks. what do you plan to do? senator cardin: having voted on

hundreds of amendments, and not yet seen one of those vote showing up in my state, for how i voted, i don't think there really gotcha amendments. it is really unlocked frustrations out there. we would be better off if we had a bipartisan budget. i tell you, the american people would applaud the leadership and think democrats if we could get a bipartisan budget and bring predictability to our country. that is what i hope they will work on. i doubt it, by hope they will. susan: we started with politics, i want to end there. the hillary clinton press conference clear anything up this week? senator cardin: all of the business related work was done on her private account.

i don't know what how she could do. she was complying with the rules of the time. she has done. you are. i think she has done everything that she can do. susan: senator ben cardin, thank you for being our guest. gentlemen, where do we start? how about the functioning of the senate. you ask questions about how republicans are running it differently then democratic tactics. you are both following the senate, how is it functioning compared to last year? burgess: similarly. it is not moving quickly. republicans don't want to get into this, it would tear the party apart more, like the dhs bill. democrats and republicans might as well have changed talking

points. democrats, in the minority, are pretty much doing a lot of things that republicans were doing in the minority and democrats were so upset about. susan: senator cardin use the term the power of minority. niels: that worked on the dhs funding bill. the question for the democratic minority caucus is going to be as the year progresses, how often is that the case that they hold together in such numbers that mitch mcconnell the majority leader, and republicans cannot get the six democratic votes needed to advance most legislation. who knows. the keystone bill, one of the reasons probably that it was the first item up on the senate floor was a just because it was a republican talking point for a long time, but because it was a bill that had 60 votes. this trafficking bill that

burgess alluded to on the floor was supposed to be a bipartisan bill, and not one that would be blocked by the democrats. but because of this up portion -- abortion language that they say was snuck in, and who knows if that is true or not, is the kind of thing that should have been a bipartisan bill. i do not know where we will see the next of those bipartisan bills that can actually advance. susan: legislative maneuvering aside, how would you say the atmosphere is? niels: i would say it is pretty poor. most will admit it, but this cotten letter did not help. he is going on tv saying that democrats were approach to sign the bill. i have not seen that to be the case. this is probably the biggest

story in the world right now. democrats were completely left in the dark about this. if they heard about it, they probably would have told reporters like us and it would have blown up before the letter was even sent out. i get the sense that the senate is stuck in the same boat point that i was in last year. we have seen senator mcconnell tried to change the vibe, but the reality is that democrats may be working to do some bipartisan things but they are also trying to get the majority back. burgess:niels: these are things that do not just silly have any easy answers. this authorization for using force against isis, i don't see, yet, evidence of how they will bridge the divide between the sort of group that wants an

almost unlimited authorization for president obama to use force versus people who want a three-year authorization, and the 2001 authorization repealed, like senator cardin. susan: senator cardin seems rather bullish about the aumf passing in the end. republicans and democrats have very different concerns. burgess: it is true, he does not support the presence authorization. he has listed points that he is concerned about. republican majority think there is to restrictive. if you have a complete partisan division right down the line, the authorization failed. the to chairman of the

committee says if it looks like it will fail on the floor, it's not worth spending much more time on it. susan: the next question is on senator menendez. how will the investigation affect the working of the committee? you asked questions about that, but you but also talking to people off line. niels: i would say that i have yet to see evidence of people admitting more knowledge and that the rumored that meant -- indictment of senator menendez will affect the committee's work , although, certainly it will have to. i don't know that people have figured out exactly how it will affect them. as senator cardin said, largely the sign -- largely declined to comment. burgess: