WATCH: Senate Republicans Block Sens. Kaine, Schiff, and Paul’s War Powers Resolution to Block Unauthorized U.S. Strikes on Venezuela

Washington, D.C. - Today, a majority of Senate Republicans voted to block U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rand Paul's (R-Ky.)resolution that would have prevented the administration from using military force against Venezuela without authorization by Congress. The resolution also emphasizes the importance of Congress asserting its power to declare war and the need to avoid getting the United States embroiled in another war.

The resolution fell just two votes short of passage.

The vote follows at least 16 unauthorized military strikes on unidentified vessels resulting in 67 deaths and military buildup in the region and numerous threats by the administration of attacks on Venezuela. Senators Kaine and Schiff previously forced a vote on their War Powers Act Resolution, which received bipartisan support, to prohibit the unauthorized and illegal strikes in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

Watch his full speech HERE. Download remarksHERE.

Background: Prior to today's vote, Kaine and Schiff forced a vote on their resolution in early October to reassert Congress' sole constitutional authority to authorize use of military force. Despite garnering bipartisan support, the vote failed. In light of continued unauthorized boat strikes, Senator Schiff posted his reaction here.

The Senators' resolution can be found here.

Read the transcript of his remarks as delivered below:

I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Paul in introducing this War Powers Resolution that provides that we have not authorized the use of force against Venezuela. We meet at a precarious moment, when we might be at the precipice of war with that country.

Today, in the Caribbean or on its way to the region are the following military assets:

Three Arleigh Burke class destroyers: the USS Gravely, Jason Dunham, and Sampson.

The USS Lake Erie, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser

The USS Newport News, a nuclear attack submarine with torpedoes and Tomahawks.

The USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship equipped with a flight deck for F-35s, Ospreys, and attack helicopters.

The MV Ocean Trader, a floating base designed for special operations.

Reaper drones, Harriet jets, and fifth generation fighters - incredibly lethal aircraft.

But this is not all.

The largest aircraft carrier ever built, the USS Gerald R Ford, is on its way right now from the Mediterranean. This means we will see upwards of an additional 2 dozen additional Super Hornets, and 2 dozen additional F-35s. This warship will be accompanied by three additional destroyers, bringing at least 10 of America's best naval war ships within striking distance of Caracas.

All told, there will be more than 400 missiles and other vertical launch systems on Nicolás Maduro's doorstep. One hundred and fifteen Tomahawks alone, with an additional 70 coming with the Ford. Are we supposed to believe this is only about striking speed boats? If so, why will there be ten thousand American servicemembers in the vicinity? Why fly three B-52s from the United States to the region? Why have B-1 supersonic bombers flown off the coast of Venezuela in just the last few weeks for so-called "Bomber Attack Demonstrations?" That's not my definition of the mission. That's what the Pentagon called it. Bomber attack demonstrations - for what, to blow up fishing vessels?

We all need to see that this has quickly become so much bigger, and so much more dangerous. And maybe that was the point. To focus the narrative on drug trafficking, so we don't recoil from what may be right around the corner with Venezuela, and that is the use of force to achieve the goal of regime change.

Now, I understand the president this weekend said he was not inclined along those lines. But I urge my colleagues to look at the administration's actions, and not merely its' words. Because if it walks like a military buildup and talks like a military buildup - it might very well be a military buildup.

Two weeks ago, the president said: "We are certainly looking at land now, because we've got the sea very well under control." And now we have the buildup I just described. People may be putting a lot of stock into the President's most recent words, saying he wouldn't strike Venezuela when he was on "60 Minutes" on Sunday.

But when asked if the leader of Venezuela's days were numbered? He also answered, "Yeah, I think so." That's what our Commander in Chief said with the largest warship the United States has, sailing close to Venezuela. If any other world leader moved this kind of firepower to another country's doorstep, we know what we would believe was taking place.

And the bottom line is this: Americans do not want another war. They do not want American servicemembers put in harm's way, either flying missions or with boots on the ground for a war not authorized by Congress.

Mothers and fathers of American sailors, Marines, soldiers, or pilots, do not want to lay awake at night wondering if their kids will be the ones who have to be deployed to yet another armed conflict, this time in South America.

Last month, we came to this body with a resolution to end the unlawful strikes that this administration had been taking against boats in international waters. And we came up a few votes short. But while we remain concerned about those ongoing strikes, this debate is about a different resolution.

This resolution is tailor-written to stop one thing: war with the nation of Venezuela. The administration has not asked Congress to authorize such a war. But the administration appears to be laying the groundwork for one anyway. If they believe a war is necessary, let them come to the Congress to make the case for one. Maduro is a murderous dictator. He is an illegitimate leader having overturned the last election by use of military force. He is a bad actor.

But I do not believe the American people want to go to war to topple his regime, in the hopes that something better might follow. If the administration feels differently, let them come to the Congress and make the case. Let them come before the American people and make the case. Let them seek an authorization to use force to get rid of Maduro.

But let us not abdicate our responsibility. Let us vote to say no to war without our approval.

We do not have to wait, nor should we wait, for that war to begin before we vote. The War Powers Resolution very clearly and intentionally gives Congress the ability to prevent a President from going to war in the first place.

The legislative history of the War Powers Act makes that abundantly clear. My colleagues might object: well, these aren't yet hostilities and yet people are already dying. They might object: well, this is not yet imminent. And yet, with the kind of military force being brought to the region with a danger to our sailors, our Marines, our soldiers, as Senator Kaine outlined, because if Venezuela believes that we are on the precipice of war, they have the capability and might take action against our ships. It clearly meets the definition of imminent.

Our predecessors in Congress designed this law precisely to respond to this very type of military build-up that we see here and act in advance of the U.S. being dragged into another war without Congress' authorization.

We in this body serve our constituents, who have told us for years, now for decades. No more war. No more use of military force for regime change. We must reassert our Constitutional power. Our duty to have the sole decision when American lives could be on the line, when war is on the line.

I share my colleague, Senator Kaine's concerns, having read the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel. But regardless of what people view of the merits of that opinion, what we're talking about here is a wholly another matter. What we're talking about here is potential war with Venezuela. What we're talking about here is a massive military and naval build up in the region. When hostilities may be imminent under circumstances clearly contemplated by Congress when it passed the War Powers Resolution.

I have debated Senator Kaine whether this is our most important power, that is the power to declare war or to refuse to declare war, or whether it is the power of the purse. It may indeed be a bit of both, in the sense that one way of cutting off a military campaign is by cutting off support for that military campaign, but we have already so abdicated our power of the purse in this institution. Should we also abdicate our responsibility to declare war and allow the administration, or any administration, any president, to usurp that authority? It would be antithetical to what the Founders intended and what they wrote.

As the founders wrote, "The power was given to the legislative branch to declare war, because the power to make war was something that an executive might grow too fond of." So, the power was given to Congress, to this legislative body. Let's use that power. Let's reassert authority. Let's say, through this resolution, if the president or the administration want to go to war for the purposes of regime change or any other purpose, that it must come to Congress and make the case to us and to the American people.

###