To require the videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent actions between a detainee or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of the armed forces of the United States pursuant to an interrogation, or other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering intelligence and a member of the armed forces of the United States, an intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor of the United States.

Executive Comment Requested from DOD.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2005

Requires the President to take such actions as are necessary, in accordance with specified laws and treaties, to ensure the videotaping of interrogations and other intelligence-related interactions between detainees or prisoners under the effective control of the U.S. Armed Forces, and members of the U.S. Armed Forces, U.S. intelligence operatives, or contractors of the United States. Directs the President to provide for the appropriate classification of such videotapes. Requires such videotapes to be made available, under seal if appropriate, to both the prosecution and defense if material to any military or civilian criminal proceeding.

Requires the President to take necessary actions to ensure immediate and unfettered access to detainees or prisoners in the custody or effective control of the U.S. Armed Forces by the following organizations: (1) International Federation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent; (2) United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and (3) United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Directs the Judge Advocate General to develop guidelines to ensure that the videotaping required by this Act is sufficiently expansive to prevent any abuse of detainees and prisoners and violations of specified laws and treaties.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ

Committees

Armed Services Committee

6 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Jan 27, 2005
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Jan 4, 2005
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Jan 4, 2005
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1-15)
Jan 4, 2005
Introduced in House
Jan 4, 2005
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2005 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

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

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.112 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.112, 109th Congress: To require the videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent actions between a detainee or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of the armed forces of the United States pursuant to an interrogation, or other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering intelligence and a member of the armed forces of the United States, an intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor of the United States.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/112

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-01-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr112/BILLS-109hr112ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:23Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.112 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.112 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.112, 109th Congress: To require the videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent actions between a detainee or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of the armed forces of the United States pursuant to an interrogation, or other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering intelligence and a member of the armed forces of the United States, an intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor of the United States.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/112

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-01-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr112/BILLS-109hr112ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:23Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.112 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.112 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.112, 109th Congress: To require the videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent actions between a detainee or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of the armed forces of the United States pursuant to an interrogation, or other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering intelligence and a member of the armed forces of the United States, an intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor of the United States.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/112

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-01-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr112/BILLS-109hr112ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:23Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.112 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.112 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.112, 109th Congress: To require the videotaping of interrogations and other pertinent actions between a detainee or prisoner in the custody or under the effective control of the armed forces of the United States pursuant to an interrogation, or other pertinent interaction, for the purpose of gathering intelligence and a member of the armed forces of the United States, an intelligence operative of the United States, or a contractor of the United States.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/112

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2005-01-04.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hr112/BILLS-109hr112ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-06-06T14:18:23Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.112 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.