Senate Sustains Point of Order, Blocking Venezuela War Powers Resolution, and Rejects UC Requests on ACA Tax Credits and Senator Phone Record Provision
The Senate convened on January 14, 2026, for a session marked by significant debate and procedural maneuvers, primarily centered on a War Powers Resolution concerning U.S. military actions in Venezuela. A motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 98, which sought to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Venezuela, was met with a point of order arguing that no hostilities were ongoing. This point of order was sustained by a 50-50 vote, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking affirmative vote, effectively preventing a full debate and vote on the resolution. Additionally, unanimous consent requests to immediately pass House-approved legislation extending ACA premium tax credits and repealing a provision related to special payments for Senators whose phone records were subpoenaed were both objected to, leading to further floor debate on healthcare costs and congressional ethics.
This chamber-day was significant as it saw the Senate's direct engagement with the constitutional balance of war powers, ultimately resulting in a procedural block that prevented a full congressional debate on ongoing U.S. military involvement in Venezuela. The sustained point of order underscored the executive branch's asserted authority in military actions and Congress's struggle to assert its constitutional role. The rejected unanimous consent requests on healthcare affordability and congressional ethics also highlighted deep partisan divisions on critical domestic policy and institutional integrity, leaving millions of Americans facing higher healthcare costs and unresolved questions about government accountability.
Directing the Removal of United States Armed Forces from Hostilities Within or Against Venezuela that Have Not Been Authorized by Congress
S.J. Res. 98Question before the chamber
Whether the point of order, asserting that S.J. Res. 98 is not entitled to privilege because U.S. troops are not engaged in hostilities in Venezuela, is well taken.
The case for
Senators Kaine, Paul, Schumer, Reed, and Schiff argued that the U.S. is indeed engaged in hostilities in or against Venezuela, citing the killing of over a hundred designated combatants, the amassing of a U.S. military "armada" (16,000 personnel, carrier strike groups, amphibious readiness groups) around Venezuela, the President's authorization of covert action, the interdiction of Venezuelan oil, the January 3 attack to seize President Maduro and his wife, and ongoing control over Venezuela's governance and economy. They emphasized Congress's constitutional duty to debate and authorize such military actions, asserting that the administration's actions constitute war and that the War Powers Resolution applies. Senator Kaine specifically noted that Secretary Rubio's letter did not confirm the end of "Operation Absolute Resolve" or that U.S. military personnel are no longer involved in hostilities.
The case against
Senator Risch argued that there are currently no U.S. forces engaged in hostilities in Venezuela, and therefore S.J. Res. 98 is not entitled to privilege. He stated that the President's authorized actions were limited in scope, short in duration (200 troops, less than 2 hours inside Venezuela, 27 minutes of engagement), and done to protect U.S. interests and citizens. He cited a response from the administration confirming the operation has ended and no troops are in Venezuela. Senator Thune also argued that the U.S. is not currently engaged in hostilities, calling the resolution a result of "Trump derangement syndrome" and highlighting the President's focus on combating illegal drugs.
Disposition
Point of order sustained · recorded vote
The joint resolution S.J. Res. 98 was deemed not privileged, blocking its further consideration.
Yeas 50, Nays 50
Amendments
- An amendment to add a finding that the use of military force by the armed forces of a foreign state within or against the United States to apprehend, arrest, and transfer the President of the United States to that foreign state would be considered an act of war against the United States. (Mr. Paul) — Ordered to lie on the table.
- An amendment to add a finding that seven members of the United States Armed Forces were wounded during the warfighting in Venezuela and have the full support of Congress as they recover. (Mr. Paul) — Ordered to lie on the table.
Who is affected
- U.S. servicemembers: Potential for deployment, injury, or death in ongoing or future military operations
- Venezuelan citizens: Subject to U.S. military actions, economic control, and political interference
- U.S. taxpayers: Funding for military operations in Venezuela
- U.S. Presidency: Executive power in foreign policy and military actions is affirmed without immediate congressional check
- U.S. Congress: Legislative power in war authorization is challenged and potentially diminished
- International community: Implications for international law, sovereignty, and regional stability
To extend ACA premium tax credits for 3 years
H.R. 1834Question before the chamber
Unanimous consent request to immediately consider and pass H.R. 1834.
The case for
Senators Schumer, Shaheen, and Wyden argued that the expiration of ACA premium tax credits on January 1, 2026, has caused premiums to skyrocket for millions of Americans, leading to nearly 1.5 million people losing coverage. They emphasized the urgent need for relief from high healthcare costs and highlighted the bipartisan support for the extension in the House of Representatives. They stated that extending these credits is the quickest and simplest way to lower premiums and that the American people are demanding this action.
The case against
Senator Crapo objected to the "clean" 3-year extension, arguing that it perpetuates a fraudulent and failed system without necessary reforms. He stated that the credits exacerbate underlying cost issues, hand insurers an additional $80 billion of taxpayer money, and fail to offer consumers more choice and control. He advocated for directing funds to HSAs controlled by patients to spur competition, prevent fraud, and reduce costs.
Disposition
Unanimous consent request · without objection
H.R. 1834 was not immediately considered or passed due to objection.
Who is affected
- Millions of Americans with ACA plans: Facing higher premiums or potential loss of health insurance coverage
- U.S. taxpayers: Funding for health insurance subsidies
- Insurance companies: Receiving payments for ACA plans
- Patients: Impacted access to and affordability of medical care
To repeal a provision regarding special payments for Senators whose phone records were subpoenaed
H.R. 6019Question before the chamber
Unanimous consent request to immediately consider and pass H.R. 6019.
The case for
Senator Peters argued that the provision, included in recent government funding legislation, created a special taxpayer-funded payday of $500,000 for a select group of eight Senators whose phone records were subpoenaed as part of a legitimate criminal investigation. He stated this policy is wrong, goes against public service, and that the House unanimously passed a bipartisan bill to repeal it. He expressed willingness to work on forward-looking changes but insisted on repealing the retroactive payment.
The case against
Senator Graham objected, stating the provision was coordinated with Democratic leadership and that the law was flagrantly violated by Jack Smith's actions in seeking his phone records without notification. He argued the provision was a response to "We are not going to take it anymore" and that the $500,000 private cause of action was intended to deter future government overreach, not for personal enrichment. He offered a modification to ensure the $500,000 would not personally benefit the Senators but insisted on preserving the notification requirement and private cause of action for others.
Disposition
Unanimous consent request · without objection
H.R. 6019 was not immediately considered or passed due to objection.
Amendments
- A substitute amendment to H.R. 6019, which Senator Graham stated would cure the Senate 37.4 issue regarding personal benefit from the $500,000 payment for Senators, while preserving notification requirements and private cause of action for others. (Mr. Graham) — Objected to by Senator Peters.
Who is affected
- Senators whose phone records were subpoenaed: Potential for financial benefit or legal recourse related to government investigations
- U.S. taxpayers: Funding for potential payments to Senators
- Department of Justice: Impact on investigative practices and transparency regarding congressional records
- Other individuals/groups: Potential for private cause of action and notification in similar circumstances, depending on the final legislative outcome
War Powers Resolution on Venezuela Blocked
highA point of order was sustained against S.J. Res. 98, a War Powers Resolution aimed at directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities in Venezuela. The vote was 50-50, with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking affirmative vote, which prevented the Senate from debating and voting on the resolution as a privileged matter.
ACA Premium Tax Credit Extension Rejected
highA unanimous consent request to immediately pass H.R. 1834, which would extend ACA premium tax credits for 3 years, was objected to by Senator Crapo. Proponents argued for urgent relief for millions facing skyrocketing premiums, while opponents cited concerns about fraud and the need for broader reforms.
Repeal of Senator Phone Record Provision Blocked
mediumA unanimous consent request to immediately pass H.R. 6019, which sought to repeal a provision for special payments to Senators whose phone records were subpoenaed, was objected to by Senator Graham. The debate highlighted concerns about taxpayer-funded windfalls and the integrity of government investigations.
Concerns Raised Over Federal Reserve Investigation
mediumSenator Schumer expressed alarm over a criminal investigation targeting the Federal Reserve, characterizing it as a dangerous attempt to coerce the institution, which he argued could lead to economic instability and higher interest rates.
Citizens United Anniversary Discussion
mediumSeveral Democratic Senators marked the 16th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, arguing that it has led to a massive influx of dark money into elections, corrupted the political process, and undermined public trust in democracy.