Elizabeth's Slotkin from Michigan.

Amna: While the war powers advanced in the senate today, the future in the house is less certain.

For a Republican perspective I spoke earlier to Montana congressman Ryan zinke.

Welcome back to the news hour, thank you for joining us.

>> My pleasure.

Amna: A lot of activity on capitol hill.

I want to ask you about what we saw in the senate where some of your Republican colleagues broke ranks, joined the Democrats, and voted to advance a war powers resolution that would limit the president's ability to take further military action in Venezuela without congressional approval.

How do you look at that?

Was that the right move and would you support a similar move in the house?

>> There has always been a tension between article one, congress, and article 2.

In this case, I will stand with the constitution article one, the president has the authority and in Venezuela it is important to realize that if you look at Panama which was justified under three conditions.

One is that Venezuela in this case, maduro with the threat to the United States because he was a drug traffickers, 52 page indictment would say he was and second he wasn't illegitimate leader, the election was fraudulent.

In Panama, we also had the Panama canal.

The president had the authority to go ahead and remove maduro.

I don't think there is any question of legality or constitution.

The big question in Venezuela is what next?

When you exercise the Monroe doctrine, it is a two-way street with responsibility to make sure that now since maduro has been removed that the conditions are set where Venezuela can prosper.

Amna: I want to ask you more about what is next in Venezuela but to follow up in terms of congressional authority.

The president has threatened unilateral action in other countries, Colombia, Mexico, Iran, Greenland.

When in your view does he require congressional approval to take that action?

>> Good question and I think it is this.

He never takes anything off the table, that is president Donald J. Trump.

On Greenland for instance, those conditions that would require a congressional approval are there.

Because in the case of Venezuela you had a leader that was in in trafficker indicted, that is not the case and Greenland.

Secondly, Greenland is no threat to us.

Lastly, they have a duly elected authority and Greenland.

I think military action in the case of Greenland would require congressional approval by law.

In the constitution.

Amna: Not with the other countries I named, correct?

>> Let's just say in Colombia, if Colombia continues their operations of trafficking drugs, now their leader is duly elected, so that would not be the case, but the president also has the responsibility constitutionally to make sure we protect this country.

Drugs coming into this country kill more people than say a missile does.

If the president views that the threat is real in the case of drugs, then I think it is probably on the table, but again what I appreciate is taking action, but action within the constitution I think is important.

Amna: One of the questions we heard a lot as this was really about the drugs and maduro was an in trafficker, then why leave in place his vice president who is now acting as president who was part of this entire regime?

What type of message does that send?

>> What it tells the message is listen and make sure you take guidance.

When the president says we are in control, I can tell you the present administration and Venezuela doesn't have a lot of latitude to do much other than follow the international law and basically do as they are told to make sure that Venezuela prospers.

In the case of oil, it is not about oil.

Venezuela had the largest population of Hezbollah and hamas outside of the Middle East and the main influencers in Venezuela were Cubans.

Not because the Cubans wanted to be there but because Cuba provided a security force around maduro because he doesn't have the support of the population itself.

In the case of Venezuela, what I would refer as we come across as a liberator rather than a conqueror and we provide the necessary means for Venezuela to have free and fair elections and to Oscar.

The oil probably will go to a third country as far as a holding pattern and then that oil will be distributed in the best interest of the Venezuelan people, which will be helpful.

Amna: We have also seen president trump say he expects U.S.

Oversight of Venezuela, both the government and running the country possible oil supply, to last for years.

Does that send the message that we are liberators and not conquerors?

>> I have a lot of confidence in Venezuela to put a free and fair election together.

Some of the problems are the opposition is not unified so if you are going to have a free and fair election, you want to make sure there is a legitimate opposition and most of the opposition quite frankly is not in the country because they have been forced to leave under the maduro regime.

I'm confident we will see a plan for the administration.

It is hard to dictate a plan when the operation was secret as it was required to be.

I think going forward what I would like to see is a detailed plan going forward.

Aking sure Venezuela is free and fair and the foreign influences removed especially from our adversaries.

Geoff: I think the opposition in Venezuela I would argue that they are unified, so how quickly would you like to see some kind of democratic transition in that country?

>> I would like to see a plan that lays out between tomorrow and the end of the year to include free and fair elections and I think secretary Rubio and his team are looking at that.

The sooner the better.

The sooner we have a transition where it is free and air elections and represent the people and make sure their resources go to help Venezuela.

The resources are siphoned off well below market and the idea is to make sure that those resources get sold on the open market at fair price and go into a holding account and distributed to make sure Venezuela's people benefit and not just the regime.

But to your earlier point about the regime in place, you are right, they are not our first choice.

They are hardly reputable and I don't trust them, I don't think we should as a nation either, but right now they had very little latitude to go outside what America is demanding.

That this is it.

You cannot transport, you can't be in an in trafficker.

Amna: Before I let you go, I want to ask you about your vote today which was against the extension of those affordable care act enhanced subsidies that expired at the end of last year.

I believe some 10,000 montanans qualified for those last year.

Briefly, what is your message about what your plan is to help them afford their health care?

>> How about not spending more money on a system that is broke?

The goal of any health care especially in the United States is what?

Access, affordability, and quality care, Obamacare did not deliver that.

Let's figure out how to reduce costs and have better care.

Covert extensions, covid is over .

Everyone recognizes health care costs are too much and too great , but why do we look at the insurance companies?

What do we look at the pharmaceuticals?

Insurance companies are making billions of dollars, billions of dollars.

Who has control of that?

I think we need to go back and start from the beginning and say, this is what we want.

We want quality care and we want to have access to care and affordability and make sure rural hospitals in Montana and the $50 billion to shore up our hospitals in Montana is important.

I'm hoping both cares wreck -- both sides recognize that health care is a problem.

There was a lot of good in Obamacare, but there were a lot of things that didn't work, especially giving the insurance and pharmaceuticals the edge area amna: That is congressman Ryan zinke joining us tonight.

Thank you.

>> Always a pleasure.

♪