H.R. 4117: To prohibit the use of private security contractors and members of the Afghan Public Protection Force to provide security for members of the Armed Forces and military installations and facilities in Afghanistan, and for other purposes.
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.R. 4117: To prohibit the use of private security contractors and members of the Afghan Public Protection Force to provide security for members of the Armed Forces and military installations and facilities in Afghanistan, and for other purposes.
112th Congress · introduced 2012-03-01 · Armed Forces and National Security · Latest: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2012-03-01 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
To prohibit the use of private security contractors and members of the Afghan Public Protection Force to provide security for members of the Armed Forces and military installations and facilities in Afghanistan, and for other purposes.
Plain summary
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the best possible security and force protection for members of the Armed Forces garrisoned and housed in Afghanistan (members) should be provided, (2) better security and force protection for such members can be provided by U.S. military personnel than by private security contractors or members of the Afghan Public Protection Force, (3) the President should take action in light of the increased risk to such members during the drawdown period and the increasing number of insider attacks, and (4) the United States remains committed to mission success in Afghanistan in light of the national security interests in the region and the sacrifice and commitment of the Armed Forces over the last ten years. Prohibits funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) from being obligated or expended for: (1) entering into a contract for the performance of security-guard functions at a military installation or facility in Afghanistan at which members deployed to Afghanistan are garrisoned or housed, (2) otherwise employing private security contractors to provide security for such members, or (3) employing the Afghan Public Protection Force to provide such security or to perform security-guard functions at such a military installation or facility. Allows the President to waive such prohibition after a certification to Congress that the Afghan Public Protection Force or private security contractors can provide protection at least equal to that provided by the Armed Forces. Directs the President to ensure that as many appropriately trained members of the U.S. Armed Forces as necessary are available to provide: (1) the security-guard functions at the installations and facilities at which members deployed to Afghanistan are garrisoned, (2) security for all members deployed to Afghanistan, and (3) counterintelligence support for such members.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
To prohibit the use of private security contractors and members of the Afghan Public Protection Force to provide security for members of the Armed Forces and military installations and facilities in Afghanistan, and for other purposes.
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [R-CA-25] · 1 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
Tom Cole (R-OK)
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Words on this page, explained (3)
- Appropriation
- Money a legislature sets aside by law for a specific purpose. Government agencies may spend public money only as it has been appropriated.
- Obligation
- A binding promise by a government agency to pay money, for example by signing a contract or awarding a grant. Spending data such as USAspending.gov counts money when it is obligated, which can be before it is actually paid out.
- Securities
- Financial investments that can be bought and sold, such as stocks and bonds.
Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-112hr4117.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/112/hr>
Record fed-us-cong112-hr4117 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong112 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong112