The Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, and under law, President Trump needs approval if military operations last longer than 60 days.

That window is quickly closing in Iran, but it comes at a time when the hill is increasingly sidelined.

Will lawmakers push back at all?

And if Congress is ceding power, how does that impact what’s ahead?

That’s coming up on "Compass Points."

♪ Announcer: Support for "Compass Points" has been provided by... the Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation, Camilla and George Smith, the Dorney-Koppel Foundation, the Gruber Family Foundation, and Cap and Margaret Anne Eschenroeder.

The Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation.

Upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ Announcer: This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

Once again, from the David M. Rubenstein Studio at WETA in Washington, here is "Compass Points" from PBS News.

Hello and welcome to "Compass Points."

I’m Lisa Desjardins.

Nick Schifrin is away.

President Trump is not the first American president to push the legal boundaries of his power as commander-in-chief, and he won’t be the last.

But a clock is ticking.

The law on war powers gives presidents 60 days to conduct military operations without congressional approval.

That time frame from Iran is about to end.

Will Congress assert any power or pushback?

Let’s look at Trump’s aggressive policy in the world from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Joining me now are two former lawmakers with years of foreign policy experience.

Former Senator Ben Cardin is a Democrat from Maryland.

He served as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

And former Representative Connie Mack, a Republican from Florida.

He served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chairing the subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

Thank you to both of you for joining us today.

Mack: It’s good to be with you.

Cardin: Thank you.

Great to be here.

Desjardins: Talking about the war in Iran, that’s where we’re going to start.

The US war is now the largest military buildup that we’ve seen since 2003, that of course being the war with Iraq.

But that war did have congressional approval.

Now, on May 1st, the Iran war will hit 60 days, as we say.

That’s the time at which the War Powers Act requires congressional approval, though President Trump can extend that for another 30 days with notification.

Senator Cardin, you know this situation well.

You voted against the authorization for the Iraq war in 2002 initially.

How do you see the role of Congress in this moment?

Well, I think Congress is the entity that authorizes the use of our force, military force, in war.

The framers of our Constitution did not want one person deciding to send our men and women into harm’s way.

That’s why the power to declare wars in the Constitution rests with Congress, not the president.

The War Powers Act defines that further by Congress.

That’s an act.

That’s not in the Constitution.

So there’s a reason why it’s important for Congress to act.

One person, the president of the United States, should not be able to get America into a war.

Desjardins: Mmm.

Now, the Senate has been voting on this, and the Senate has rejected any sort of limitation on the president so far.

However, Congressman Mack, we have seen some senators, Republican senators, 3 of them at least, say that once we hit 60 days, they are not sure that they can support any more in Iran.

What is the role for Republicans in particular, since your party is in power right now on the Hill?

Well, I think it’s important that all members, you know, are focused on the issue and can determine whether or not the War Powers Act is being violated.

So I think it’s healthy to have the debate.

And I agree with the senator that Congress has the authority, is the one that holds the cards, should hold the cards.

But at the same time, you can’t hamstring the president of the United States.

So I think where the president has taken decisive action in Iran is a good thing.

And I think most people can agree that having a nuclear Iran is not good for national security, for our national security, or for the world.

Cardin: It’s one thing if you’re being attacked and you have to defend ourselves.

We want the president to act quickly.

There’s an immediate threat against America.

The president needs to act quickly.

But this was really a war of timing by choice.

And the president should have come to Congress and the American people to get broader support for the mission.

There should have been a more open discussion about it.

That’s been done by previous administrations before using military force.

And that was not done by President Trump.

Mack: Well, it’s not done, it hasn’t been done by all.

And I think both sides, Republicans and Democrats, can find places where the other side hasn’t followed the War Powers Act.

So, that being said, I do think that, like I said earlier, you can’t have the president of the United States be hamstrung.

He is the commander-in-chief and has to be able to make these decisions.

And the decision was made that Iran was getting too close to a nuclear weapon.

Let’s talk about the specifics of the Iran situation right now.

Iran, I think it’s fair to say, has, in fact, been wounded, but is still quite defiant.

We don’t know how long this is going to go.

But the situation now has moved well beyond a debate over sanctions.

I don’t know when we would even come back to that kind of scenario of being at that place.

So, I want to ask both of you, starting with you, Senator Cardin, how would you handle the situation right now in Iran, given where we are at this moment?

What would you as a lawmaker do or want to happen?

Well, I think there’s agreement among Democrats and Republicans and the American people that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, that the way that they act is too dangerous to the region and the world for them to have that type of capacity to be able to use a nuclear device.

Under the Iran agreement, nuclear agreement negotiated by President Obama, there was at least a 10-month to a year window before Iran could break out, and we had inspectors on the ground and we had some advance notice.

President Trump withdrew from that agreement and instead used military force in order to reduce the capacity for Iran to quickly compile a nuclear weapon.

Military options will not eliminate the threat.

All it can do is set it back.

Iran has the knowledge and capacity to rebuild, if it wishes to rebuild, a nuclear weapon, and it certainly looks like they do.

So the objective here has to be to have an enforceable agreement, an enforceable agreement, where Iran says, and they said this in the past, that they have no desire to have a nuclear weapon.

That has to be enforced by making sure they don’t have the nuclear material to put a weapon together, and that there’s inspectors on the ground to make sure, in fact, that does not happen.

That has to be done through negotiations.

Congressman Mack, enforceable agreement, that’s always been difficult to actually get your hands all the way around.

Well, I think, you know, Iran has shown that their word doesn’t mean a lot.

So they will say, we don’t want to get a nuclear weapon, and then at the same time they turn around and do everything they can to get a nuclear weapon.

And I think we see where Trump is right now, where the United States is right now, is we have, we have turned the military action into a debate about the Strait of Hormuz and whether or not we’re going to have free and open lanes for commerce.

And that is something that the president is going to have to take notes on.

Desjardins: But is that helpful or harmful?

Mack: I think it’s, I think it’s helpful.

Desjardins: Having that debate?

- Having that debate.

Desjardins: Why?

Because we can’t, we can’t allow Iran to control that waterway the way they are now.

Desjardins: But before President Trump took this action, Iran didn’t have this power.

They didn’t have the kind of leverage they have right now over the world economy.

Mack: They had it, they just weren’t using it.

Desjardins: Correct.

But it was still President Trump’s initiative, I guess you could say, that really triggered them into this step.

Cardin: It brings up the question, what is the mission here?

Why did we use military force against Iran this time?

It doesn’t appear it was for the nuclear weapon issue.

That was done by a previous military action by the United States.

There was no evidence that they were any closer to putting together a nuclear weapon.

Were we doing it to, for what reason?

Regime change?

That was unlikely.

Were we doing it to eliminate their support of proxies and their own terrorist activities?

Maybe to weaken that capacity.

But it’s been unclear.

It hasn’t been defined exactly what our mission was in using our military the way we did.

So when you ask, what should the outcome be?

It’s difficult for us to tell.

I can tell you what we need on the nuclear weapons program.

I don’t know whether we have a defined objective in regards to the proxies of terrorism, or whether the Strait of Hormuz or the oil issue was even involved in the original decision to use our military.

I’m going to take advantage.

Oh, go ahead.

Mack: I’m sorry.

I would disagree.

That I do believe that the nuclear threat was still very active and pushed the hand of the president in taking the action he took in Iran.

Desjardins: And this is certainly the debate that we’ve been hearing from lawmakers on the Hill, the same one.

And I will also say to the idea of the mission that initially we did hear some concrete aspects of the mission before we got into the Strait of Hormuz, things that we’ve heard from other presidencies as well about limiting their nuclear ability, and especially trying to make sure that Iran was not able to be in reach of attacking our forces who were nearby bases.

Those were some goals that the administration outlined.

Cardin: But the president announced after the first attack that the nuclear program, he said, was destroyed.

But it was certainly diminished greatly after the first attack.

And there’s been... Desjardins: Meaning last year, Last year’s attack.

So, and the use of our military in this action had very little to do with the nuclear program.

Since we’re PBS, I’m going to take the advantage of our very smart audience to ask a bit of an ephemeral question.

You both have been in situations where you’ve disagreed with a president of your own party.

For you, Senator Cardin, that was the JCPOA, the Obama-Iran deal.

I know that was a hard vote for you.

For you, Congressman Mack, that was on, I believe, the wiretapping provisions that President George W. Bush wanted to use.

I want to ask both of you, what is it like to be facing a president of your own party in the Oval Office or near the Oval Office and disagree?

Many Republicans agree with President Trump, but I know some do not behind the scenes.

So what is that like, and how do you decide to do that when faced with that pressure?

Cardin: Well, it’s a great question.

I spent over a half an hour with President Obama one-on-one in the Oval Office as he was trying to convince me to support his position on the JCPOA.

So it’s difficult to say no to the president.

The president obviously has the resources.

He has the ability.

He’s a person I deeply respect.

I respect his judgment.

But the framers of our Constitution depended upon the branches of government being independent, the checks and balances on abuse of power.

So it’s critically important that Congress exercise that independent role.

I was at the time the lead Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I had to exercise that independent judgment.

Now, prior to that vote, I worked with Senator Corker, the Republican leader of the committee, to get a process where Congress could review the nuclear agreement in a way that would be productive, rather than a destructive way.

Desjardins: It was an unusual and clever process.

I remember that.

And we got that done.

So I think I helped the administration in how Congress would respond, but at the end I could not support the agreement.

Mack: Yeah.

It’s, you know, when you find yourself at the White House and the president is saying, why aren’t you with me?

It is one of those sort of gut check moments.

But the senator’s right.

You know, I had a job to do.

And I think that at the end, I was helpful with the administration on putting sunset provisions and other things into the legislation.

Um, uh... But I can remember sitting in the office, and President Bush looked at me and said, "Mac, what are you doing here?"

And, you know, my reaction was, "Mr.

President, I’m asking myself the same thing."

[laughing] Like you’ve been called, you did something wrong, you’ve been called to the big office.

Yeah, exactly.

Right.

Well, let me ask you a tough question, though.

Republicans on the Hill practically, can most of them express opposition to President Trump when it comes to Iran?

A lot of them want more information.

That’s one level.

Many of them have real concerns about how long this is going to go.

A lot of them say, "We don’t know what the end plan is."

And President Trump himself says he doesn’t know what the end plan is.

But can they practically and politically speak out?

And then to what degree do you think Republicans, because I’ve seen some of those do this, are talking themselves into supporting the president?

Not all of them, but some.

Mack: Yeah.

I think that, you know, it’s like most things in life.

It’s how you do it.

So if you if you’re a Republican and you go out on the news and you’re sort of blasting the administration, that’s not that’s not going to work out well.

But you can have conversations behind the closed doors and express your opinions.

And I think that that is welcomed.

Uh... And there’s a lot of it’s not just the presidency.

It’s a lot of the the people who work for the president.

Cardin: So I think it’s a matter of leadership, and this is for both parties, not one party or the other.

It’s difficult for an individual member at times to stand up to the president because of the repercussions politically.

But if the leadership of your party in the Congress recognizes the role that Congress plays as an independent entity, it gives you the ability to be able to express yourself more freely.

So I think in recent years, on both sides, not just Republicans, but also Democrats, there should be a more friendly attitude towards the independence of the legislative branch.

Desjardins: Respecting that.

Mack: I never I never felt like, when I was in Congress, that I couldn’t speak up on issues that I felt were important and that were important to me.

Venezuela was one of them, where I disagreed with... with how the president, President Bush, handled Venezuela.

But I never felt like I couldn’t express myself.

And hopefully that’s the way it still is.

Desjardins: We’re going to, I hope, get to Venezuela in a second.

But I want to point out, Senator Cardin, you were actually a bit prescient about Iran.

Here’s what you said about President Trump in 2020.

The president has already shown that he will act and will not comply with the War Powers Act, and he’s likely to use force again that could lead to a lengthy military engagement with Iran.

That is a possibility.

And just as importantly, if the president wants to use military, he must seek prior authorization from Congress, as is envisioned in the Constitution of the United States.

I think this cuts to the key question on the Hill.

You’re both in touch with lawmakers there still.

What is the level of concern that this could, in fact, be a lengthy operation?

Cardin: See, I think the president’s already violated the War Powers Act.

It’s not 60 days.

He had to come to Congress before, and he didn’t, because there wasn’t an urgent need for the use of our military.

Desjardins: The presidents always debate, of course.

I understand that.

The presidents have not acknowledged the ability of Congress to control their Article 2 powers.

So I recognize that.

The commander-in-chief has certain discretion, and we want the commander-in-chief to have certain discretion.

But in the use of the military against Iran, it was not a matter of immediate timing that was so critically important.

Yes, in this case it was to take out certain leadership, but that was more regime change that didn’t work.

So the urgency here, to me, is something that did not release the president from his obligations under the War Powers Act, which he violated.

Mack: See, and I think that’s where we can have a disagreement on whether or not... we don’t... are privy to a lot of the information that they’re getting now.

Desjardins: Many members of Congress would also say they’re not privy to as much information as they want.

That’s true.

You’re always looking to get more information, and I think that’s part of the process, where members can challenge the administration and say, "I need more information."

And when you’re a member of Congress, or I would imagine in the Senate, when you don’t get that feedback from the administration, it’s very frustrating.

Cardin: See, I think sometimes we get too involved in the process.

Process is really important here.

But because the process wasn’t followed, there was bombs dropped, there were people that were killed, there were Americans that lost their lives.

Maybe it was worthwhile, maybe it wasn’t.

But that’s why you come to Congress first, to have those types of discussions.

There’s a reason for this process.

It’s not just objecting to the president not following a process that every administration thinks is unnecessary.

There’s a reason for that process.

We’re talking about the destruction that occurs with dropping bombs, as well as the loss of American lives.

And that’s a decision that’s very difficult to be made, has to be made at times, but there’s a reason for the process to make sure it’s the right thing to do.

Desjardins: Well, and we’re talking about the impact of American foreign policy for years, which, honestly, members of Congress have connections with our allies and specific people overseas much longer than do presidents in general.

All of your relationships with them matter.

And I want to turn a little bit to Venezuela and to South America, something you both have followed closely.

I’m going to ask you, Congressman Mack, what do you think US policy is towards South America?

What is the doctrine now?

The president only predictably can be unpredictable.

But what is the doctrine?

What do you see right now?

I think the president, the administration has been very clear on the policy towards Latin America.

And that is that the United States expects something in return from the support that we give to the countries in Latin America.

Desjardins: OK.

So is it transactional?

Do we have a transactional foreign policy now?

Mack: I think there is definitely some transactional nature to it, absolutely.

Cardin: I think it’s transactional now.

I hope we get back to value-based, democratic value-based foreign policy.

That’s America’s strength.

Our strength has been in our values.

And because we have been absent so much in using value-based foreign engagement, we see countries like China coming into the global south having much more influence in our own hemisphere.

So it’s critically important that we lead with our values.

Venezuela did not lead with our values.

We started off by bombing drug ships.

That’s extrajudicial killings.

That’s against our policies and rule of law and due process and everything we believe in on values.

It may have accomplished a mission that was important, but it didn’t follow our democratic values in doing that.

That to me gives a green light to other countries just doing what they want to for their transactional needs, rather than respecting universal values.

Desjardins: Congressman, are you worried about China taking a message from this?

Mack: Well, I am.

And hopefully what China’s, the message that China is getting is "You’re not going to have just free reign anymore."

Desjardins: If they say it’s in our interest to take over Taiwan, to be more aggressive there, be more aggressive in the South China Seas, that’s what the US did.

But at the same time, I think they look at the decisive nature of the president and what happened in Iran, what happened in Venezuela, and they’re going to think twice about what they’re going to do next.

Desjardins: I want to get in another big topic in terms of congressional power, and that is appropriations.

I’m an appropriations nerd.

I read the appropriations bills.

If you want to understand government, try and tackle those big, thick bills and their reports.

But we saw President Trump really take unilateral action, including against USAID.

Congress later funded USAID.

But essentially, that agency doesn’t exist as the way it did, despite Congress wanting it to function that way.

This week, we heard a story from our correspondent, Fred de Sam Lazaro, when he went to Uganda.

And he showed what’s been happening to programs there, for example, big declines in HIV and AIDS treatment, malaria deaths.

And overall, we’ve seen experts in many different organizations say they think maybe 500 000 deaths because of the amount and the way that the USAID cuts were done.

So, my question to you is, how important, I guess, has Congress failed here in now enforcing its own maybe greatest power when it comes to the power of the purse?

Are you concerned going ahead that presidents will just spend as they want or not spend as they want, despite whatever either party in Congress wants?

Congressman?

Mack: Yeah, I think there has been this sort of sucking sound from the legislative branch to the administration.

And that’s been going on for a long time.

The Congress has a role to play, and I think really has to fight to make sure that it holds on to that power.

Because we do have separations of power.

And it’s the Congress’s responsibility to set that course.

We’ve seen over the last many decades the erosion of power from the legislative branch of government to the executive branch of government.

It’s a trend that’s been going on for a long time, including in the appropriation process.

Do I think Congress needs to be stronger with President Trump as he tries to take over their responsibilities and power on appropriations?

Yes.

But I do give the Congress credit for working together, Democrats and Republicans, on the appropriation process, Homeland Security being one exception.

Desjardins: They’re trying, but yes, yeah.

Cardin: That one, that department should be funded, and I’m sorry they can’t come to a bipartisan agreement on that.

But in regards to the regular appropriation process, they have come together, and they have passed appropriation bills.

And as you point out, the president says we’re getting out of the foreign aid business, and Congress appropriates the money for the foreign aid.

It’s still there.

Not as high as I would like to see it, but it’s a compromise made up of the current membership of Congress.

So I think Congress is trying to reassert its power under the appropriation.

Desjardins: Are they trying hard enough?

in our last few seconds?

No, they should try harder, but recognize that the president can do certain things.

How do you enforce action when the president does things that are not allowed?

It’s difficult.

Well, he has an advantage, which court takes a lot longer to resolve these questions, which is where many of them are right now in court.

But in our court right now, I have to thank both of you for a fantastic discussion.

It’s very valuable.

And our viewers appreciate it.

Both: Thank you.

That’s all we have time for for now.

Thank you at home for joining us so much.

I’m Lisa Desjardins of the PBS NewsHour and "Compass Points."

We’ll see you again next week on "Compass Points."

Announcer: Support for "Compass Points" has been provided by... the Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation, Camilla and George Smith, the Dorney-Koppel Foundation, the Gruber Family Foundation, and Cap and Margaret Anne Eschenroeder.

The Judy and Peter Blum Kovler Foundation.

Upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad.

Additional support is provided by Friends of the News Hour.

♪ Announcer: This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪ You’re watching PBS.