PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 16, 2014
War Powers Consultation Act of 2014 - States that: (1) the purpose of this Act is to establish a means by which the judgment of both the President and Congress can be brought to bear when deciding whether the United States should engage in a significant armed conflict; and (2) this Act is not meant to define, circumscribe, or enhance the constitutional war powers of either the executive or legislative branch of government.
Repeals the War Powers Resolution.
Establishes the Joint Congressional Consultation Committee.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the President to: (1) consult regularly with the Committee regarding significant matters of foreign policy and national security; (2) before ordering the deployment of members of the Armed Forces into a significant armed conflict, consult with and report to the Committee regarding the circumstances necessitating the significant armed conflict, the objectives, and the conflict's estimated scope and duration; and (3) consult with the Committee at least every two months for the duration of any significant armed conflict.
States that, if the President determines that the need for secrecy or other emergency circumstances preclude carrying out such reporting before significant armed conflict is ordered or begins, the President shall carry out such reporting not later than three days after the beginning of the significant armed conflict.
Declares that, within 30 days after the deployment of members of the Armed Forces into a significant armed conflict for which Congress has not enacted a formal declaration of war or otherwise enacted a specific authorization for the use of military force, the chair and vice chair of the Committee shall introduce a joint resolution of approval. Sets forth related congressional procedures, including the introduction of a joint resolution of disapproval if a vote against a resolution of approval's passage has taken place.
States that nothing in this Act shall be construed as modifying U.S. obligations under any treaty or international agreement.
People & committees
Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S442-443)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1939 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1939 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1939 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1939 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.