i wanted to start with politics in your home state. you are a long time senator and your colleague has said she is not seeking another term. there is a large field democratic primary, for that seat, and also some competitive house races with people running for the senate. do you have any clans to endorse anyone in the senate race? do you have any sort of advice or guidance for the people who might be thinking that seat about how to avoid a situation where the democratic party fractures? senator cardin: first of all, i'm using senator mikulski's words. we will make sure that we maintain a democratic seat. we will have some interesting

primaries in the house of representatives as well. senator mikulski has an incredible career. what a legacy she has left. there is a lot of interest in her seat. we have a great ranch. we have a great delegation of people interested in running for her seat. i think we will have a competitive primary. that could be healthy for the democratic party. we wanted to be positive and focus on the person's vision for the united states senate qualifications, and that the democratic voters nominate the best. senator mikulski and i will do everything we can to make sure that seat is held by democratic nominee. neil: do you think that it matters or that voters should take into account where in the state these various candidates may come from. that is something that always comes up in maryland politics.

how much should that play into people's consideration? senator cardin: melander's geography comes into play, as well as other factors. the person who works the hardest and presents the best vision for our country and the state of maryland will be our nominee. at 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 came ace gave a speech the other day. you think he can offer a credible challenge to hillary clinton as a presidential candidate? senator cardin: i think governor o'malley did an excellent job as

governor. he has this accountability system where he holds agencies to accomplish definable results. he has had a strong vision to improve education. he made maryland's infrastructure first class. i think he has a very good record as governor of maryland and mayor of baltimore city. hillary clinton is clearly the front runner for our nomination. there is no question in my mind. governor o'malley understands that. we will see how things resolve itself. burgess: it sounded like you are fond of the idea of having a competitive primary. do you think there should be a competitive presidential primary as well? senator cardin: there's nothing like a presidential primary.

the primary season for the presidential spans a great deal of time with a concentration on a few states in the beginning. my guess is that we will know early in the process our nominee. that's how the nomination process works. it's different than it is in the senate. burgess: i want to have it to foreign policy. neil: starting off at the big picture question for democrats with the potentially looming criminal indictment that seems like it's going to be forthcoming against a ranking member on that committee senator robert menendez of new jersey. you are someone his near -- is

near him and seniority. senator boxer having this seniority. how much do you think this will be an issue? on the republican side, people have had to step aside from leadership roles. what is your take on how the my all play out? senator cardin: you will hear from democrats and republicans that senator menendez did an excellent job on the foreign ration -- foreign relations committee. he has been able to bring people together, raise critical questions that the united states senate should raise. he is an effective member of the united states senate. nothing has come down.

i will not speculate. we will see when things occur if they occur, but this point all we do is rita information in the newspaper. i think you will find most members of the united states senate will not comment on this because there's nothing to comment about. neil: i will follow-up on that by turning to one of the foreign relations committee's jurisdictions. you had a hearing with the administration leadership on the proposed authorization for the use of military force against the isis terror group. what do you think coming out of that hearing is the prospect that anything at all is archie going to be able to move to 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 about this nation being stronger when we speak with a united voice. there are strong support in the congress for the mission of helping iraq and syria deal with its concerns with the growth of isis. we need to be helpful. we don't want to put our ground troops there. the united states has provide the leadership to not only degrade, but ultimately destroy isis, and that is done by empowering the iraqi and the syrians and others to take care of the security of their own country. that is what our game plan is about, what our military doing. that is supported by a bipartisan large number in the house and senate. the senate foreign relations committee last year passed authorization for the use of military force.

it received a vote of every single democrat honor committee. many republicans that they were not prepared to support it. the president has now ask for the use of force. what we passed in the senate foreign relations committee should be the basis of what congress and ask. it complies with every single need that the secretary of defense mentioned before our committee yesterday. it is a clear indication that we are united supporting the president, giving him the right to continue the military operations that he is doing today, it give him the flexibility if circumstances changes to meet those needs. it also gives him a time until the next administration to work on what should be the longer-term needs going forward. the three points i raised are the three points that need to be dealt with. the authorization to not do anything about the 2001 authorization that was passed to

give the military -- the president the right to use force to attack the country who attacked our country. that authorization of force is still being used. it is the longest authorization for force and effect in history of america. longer than the vietnam war, the revolutionary war, world war ii. i think we would be hard-pressed to say that you can use that authorization against isis, and yet this demonstration has interpreted it that way. i want to dress the 2001 as we address the new authorization. senator murphy and i have introduced a resolution that would terminate that authorization, the same as the isis authorization three-years from now. the second issue is ground troops. the president has made it clear that we were not have ground troops in this campaign.

well let's make sure the authorization says that. the current authorization submitted by the administration leaves open the use of ground troops. i think we will want to make sure that is tightened before we pass an authorization for the use of military force. lastly, what are the associated groups that you could use military force that may not be directly isis. that issue needs to be clarified. i hope we can get consensus in the congress and has an authorization for the use of military force. i think it is our responsibility to do that. burgess: 47 of your colleagues sent a letter to address the iranian leadership that attempts to undercut the president's negotiating ability as he gets down to the last few days of this nuclear arms negotiations with iran. how concerned are you that letter will affect his ability to do that? senator cardin: i did not

understand how that letter could be sent. it is not in the tradition of the united states senate. any individual senator king do what he or she was to to, but for 47 to send a letter and undermine the united states, undermine the president's ability to negotiate on the behalf of the united states, that was something that should never have happened in american politics. it was clearly partisan. there is no question about it. it is not helpful to the negotiations taking place in regards to the nuclear capacity. it is something that was not helpful. i think we have to move forward. clearly, we have to make sure that iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. the president has difficult negotiations in the next two weeks, and he should've had the full support of the united states congress in doing that. i'm disappointed about that letter being sent. burgess: you have signaled support for legislation that

would ratchet up sanctions on iran after negotiations and also allow congress to weigh-in. you signed a letter to the president that we may consider these after march 24, but before then, we will not vote for them. you think the letter has affected that sort of group of democrats for their support of these two bills? senator cardin: i think it 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 a partisan effort by an overwhelming majority of republican senators. it does make it more challenging. the bottom line is congress is engaged, must be engaged, if there is an agreement. we impose the sanctions. they are statutory sanctions that have been imposed against iran for the only way they can be removed is by congressional action. congress is going to have to get involved if an agreement is reached in iran, and we should get involved. there is an appropriate role for

the executive and legislative branches in this. you don't change the rules two weeks before the deadline before agreement. so 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 -- has to be involved in its review. lastly on additional sanctions i don't think there's any disagreement at all. if iran does not enter into an agreement, there will be additional sanctions, and the president of the united states will be the first ask for additional sanctions. neil: i'm about to ask a question regarding things that might take place in a classified session. how much of senators been briefed by secretary kerry and others on how those negotiations are going, and how much do you expect to know about what the outcome is going to look like before there is some sort of

public announcement by the p5 plus one? senator cardin: the people of this country should know that the members of congress have been briefed and classified settings as to the status of negotiations between iran and the support we are receiving from the international community and how close iran is to having a nuclear weapon, and what type of capacity they have. those questions are asked and answered in a classified setting, and i feel comfortable that we have been briefed on a regular basis as to the status. i will have further conversations today in regards to the status of negotiations. it is done on a regular basis. clearly, negotiations need to be kept confidential. the classified nature of our discussions is very important, but you get a sense that in those negotiations the frameworks are taking place, you

don't know the specifics and reactions, you have to be there to understand that. my bottom line is this, iran cannot have the capacity to break out to a nuclear weapon in a short span of time. there has to be verification. there are going to be consequences if they try to violate any proposed agreement. we have to be confident that is taking place. in our discussions, we have made that clear. yet the administration understands this. an exact dual include all of those provisions. susan: there have been a number of pieces written recently regarding the public briefings saying the tone has changed, but there is more pessimism about the level of threat. i'm wondering what you can tell the public about the scope of this threat from isis, and what the medium and long-term looks like in our country and with our

allies in our fight against them? senator cardin: we have been in this campaign for a little over half a year. in the last couple of months, i think we have seen significant progress in containing isis's advancement. we know they recruit primarily because of the territory they control. they are controlling less territory today that a few months ago. they receive revenues from the territories they control, as well as through the use of the sale of oil and illegal activities like kidnapping and ransom. we believe that in every one of those categories they have been cut off significantly on their support base. we have made some progress in doing that. they are still recruiting large numbers. that is of great concern. 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 their on destiny. that means you need to have a much stronger relationship with the sunni population and the sunni tribes. they need to control their own territory so that isis does not control it. we have made some progress, but that battle continues. it is a major concern that we do support the efforts of the iraqis sunnis to take control of their own destiny and not have to rely on -- fear isis. in syria, it is much more difficult because we have problems with the regime. we are relying with--the help of other air of 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 carried out. they are still in that process. it is too early to tell the prognosis.

the bottom line is that america and our international partners have -- are committed to degrading and destroying isis. it will take a long time. it will not be done in a matter of months, but we are determined and we will win. burgess: i know you oppose the keystone pipeline. mitch mcconnell said he is going to lead that chamber you serve in, but we have not seen anything like that. we saw the senate get stuck on homeland security funding, and recently there has been an ugly fight over a bipartisan human trafficking bill, which appeared to have support until it came to the floor. how good of a job do think mitch mcconnell is doing right now? senator cardin: i am not going to judge the majority leader in the senate at this stage. we are only two months into the session. i was extremely disappointed

that he started with keystone is the first debate. there are different views on it, but everyone would agree that it's not the major issue of our time. why did he start with immigration reform, for example? we know we have problems on the borders. we know we have serious issues. we know that our immigration reform system is broken, and there could be a healthy debate in the united states 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 that we have to resolve and we have differences on. but we chose keystone, which has a minimal impact on energy policy. and worse, it's damaging to our environment. my point is that i don't think he set the right priorities. we have to get a budget done. we have to develop i bipartisan budget. it's having bipartisan decision-making on key issues.

americans want us to make decisions, more predictability from washington. so set up the atmosphere where we can understand each other and find common ground, and that is not taken place yet in the senate. burgess: your party criticized the republicans when they were in the minority on the senate floor and said they were the producer of this gridlock in the senate. how do you in the minority balance taking on republicans over things that you do not like with keeping the senate moving forward on legislation. i think a lot of people were surprised that the homeland security funding bill did not come to the floor for debate. how did you view that? senator cardin: the fact that we were able to stand strong and united as a democratic caucus allow this to get a regular appropriations for the department of homeland security. what the republicans were trying to do was outrageous.

they were holding up the department of homeland security because are having an argument with the president on immigration provisions. that was the not -- was not the right vehicle. we use the power minority effectively to help the security of this country, and we won the argument. we won that day. we use the process appropriate to get the right results we set right away that we are not going to use dilatory actions to take on controversial issues. we were willing to have a debate. we will not require 60 votes to start a debate on immigration. we are ready to have that debate. you will find that the democrats in the minority want to have debate on the floor the united states senate. we want to have the issues that are important to the american people debated, budget transportation system, education affordable. what are we doing about nearing the wage gap in america?

what are we doing to improve our health care system? let's have robust debates. if it's going to be more keystone type bills, you not going to see the democrats in the senate passively saying, do what you want to do. we think we have to address the problems of the american people. neil: one of the issues you have mentioned is that the republicans are planning on bringing to the floor a budget resolution. in some ways, this is an example where certainly the roles are reversed, and as they have been in a number of ways, but specifically on the budget resolution, what is the democratic caucus strategy in terms of offering what some might call amendments where people who are watching c-span will see the senate floor on until 4:00 in the morning presumably in a couple of weeks.

what are you planning to do in terms of that process benchmark susan:? susan: we have a few minutes left. senator cardin: i don't ring they are gotcha amendments. we would be better off if we had a bipartisan budget, and i to you the american people would applaud the republican leadership and thank democrats if we could get a bipartisan budget to gain predictability to our country. that's what i hope the republicans will work on. will we do it? i doubt it. susan: we started with politics, and i want to in there. did hillary clinton's press conference settle any questions you have? senator cardin: maybe all of the government related business that was done on her e-mail account i don't know what else he could do.

she was complying. she has made a complete disclosure. the proper information will be made available to the public. i think she is done every thing she can do. susan: thank you very much for being our guest. gentlemen, where shall we start? let me start with the functioning of the senate. you ask a lot of questions about how the republicans are running it differently. how is it functioning to last year. i know the senator was trying to make a point about democrats being fine about opening a debate on immigration. this is what republicans don't want to do. i really just think that there will be jokes, but republicans

and democrats might of will have just switched talking points. the democrats are doing a lot of the same things the republicans do in the minority. wesusan: we use the power of the minority. neil: the question for this democratic minority caucus is going to be how often is that the case that they hold together in such numbers that mitch mcconnell the majority leader of the republicans cannot feel loved democratic votes needed to advance most legislation. who knows? the keystone bill one of the reasons that it was first up on the floor was

because it was a bill that had 60 votes. this trafficking bill that burgess alluded to was supposed to have been a bipartisan bill that was not supposed to be one that was going to be blocked by the democrats, but because of this abortion language that the democrats say they did not know anything about and was not in on them and who knows whether that's true or not, is the kind of thing that should have been a bipartisan bill, so i don't know when we are going to see the next of those bipartisan bills that can actually advance. susan: how would you say the atmosphere is in the senate right now? burgess: i would say it is pretty poor. this letter did not help anything. having 47 republicans on it, going on tv saying democrats were approached to sign the bill, i found no evidence that that is the case here at this is

probably one of the biggest stories in the world right now 47 members of the majority of the u.s. senate are writing to the iranian leadership and democrats were left in the dark about this. if they heard about it, they probably would have told reporters and it would of been blown up before it was sent out. i get the sense that the senate is stuck in the same point that it was at. we have seen -- neil: this authorization for using force against isis, i don't see yet evidence of how they're going to bridge the divide between the group that

once an almost unlimited authorization for president obama to use versus three years sunset and a 2001 authorization retail. -- repealed. it remains to be seen if it's ultimately worth it to bring these things to the floor. susan: democrats and republicans have serious concerns and they are different concerns? burgess: what senator cardin didn't say, but it's true, he doesn't support the president's authorization. no democrat on that committee is going to vote on what the president sends over it they think it's to open ended. if you have a complete partisan division down the line, the

authorization fails. the chairman of that committee has said that if it looks like it's going to fail on the floor it's not worth spending much more time on. susan: a list question is on the senator demint in this investigation. -- senator menendez investigation. how will that affect the work of the foreign relations committee? neil: i have yet to see evidence of people acknowledging that the rumored indictment of senator menendez is going to affect the committee's work. it will have to. i just don't know that people have yet figured out how exactly is going to affect it, but people are largely declining to comment other than the few republican senators who actually

have alleged that there is some kind of conspiracy at the justice department and that this is politically motivated. burgess: eventually there is going to be an actual indictment , if what we have seen reported is true, and that is when this will hit a fever pitch. susan: thank you for being our questioners on his maker this week. >> tonight on q&a, the director of the georgetown medical watchdog project on pharmaceutical companies and how they influence doctors and what medication to prescribe. >> it starts 7-10 years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a joint before it is approved, it's not illegal to market a disease. drug companies have sometimes invented or exaggerated diseases and cert