PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 2004
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the conditions and techniques of training of U.S. military personnel are not inhumane; (2) persons detained in the Global War on Terrorism are not entitled to privileges or treatment superior to those afforded U.S. military personnel during training; (3) terrorists are a mortal enemy of the United States and all civilized nations; (4) the United States must continue to pursue individuals who violate the laws, orders, and policies requiring humane treatment of persons detained in the Global War on Terrorism and ensure that such violations do not occur in the future; (5) all world governments should seek to eliminate terrorism; (6) the U.S. Government should continue to develop and apply processes to determine whether persons it detains are lawful or unlawful combatants and whether they continue to constitute a terrorist threat; (7) the apprehension, detention, and interrogation of terrorists are fundamental elements in the successful prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism and the protection of U.S. citizens' lives; and (8) the overriding national priority in the Global War on Terrorism must be to win the war with the least loss of innocent life.
People & committees
Rep. Hunter, Duncan [R-CA-52] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 6, 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 H.Con.Res.472 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 H.Con.Res.472 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 H.Con.Res.472 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 H.Con.Res.472 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.