```

[House Report 110-352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-352

======================================================================

 
               MEJA EXPANSION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

 September 27, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Conyers, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2740]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2740) to require accountability for contractors and 
contract personnel under Federal contracts, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 
with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do 
pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     1
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     6
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     8
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9

                             The Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL STATUS OF CONTRACT PERSONNEL.

  (a) Clarification of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 
Act.--
          (1) Inclusion of contractors.--Subsection (a) of section 3261 
        of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
                  (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
                  (B) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (2) 
                and inserting ``; or''; and
                  (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
          ``(3) while employed under a contract (or subcontract at any 
        tier) awarded by any department or agency of the United States, 
        where the work under such contract is carried out in an area, 
        or in close proximity to an area (as designated by the 
        Department of Defense), where the Armed Forces is conducting a 
        contingency operation,''.
          (2) Definition.--Section 3267 of title 18, United States 
        Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) The term `contingency operation' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10.''.
  (b) Department of Justice Inspector General Report.--
          (1) Report required.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
        Department of Justice shall submit to Congress a report in 
        accordance with this subsection.
          (2) Content of report.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
        include--
                  (A) a description of the status of Department of 
                Justice investigations of alleged violations of section 
                3261 of title 18, United States Code, to have been 
                committed by contract personnel, which shall include--
                          (i) the number of complaints received by the 
                        Department of Justice;
                          (ii) the number of investigations into 
                        complaints opened by the Department of Justice;
                          (iii) the number of criminal cases opened by 
                        the Department of Justice; and
                          (iv) the number and result of criminal cases 
                        closed by the Department of Justice; and
                  (B) findings and recommendations about the number of 
                criminal cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice 
                involving violations of section 3261 of title 18, 
                United States Code.
          (3) Format of report.--The report under paragraph (1) shall 
        be submitted in unclassified format, but may contain a 
        classified annex as appropriate.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATIVE UNIT FOR 
                    CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

  (a) Establishment of Theater Investigative Unit.--The Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall ensure that there are adequate 
personnel through the creation of Theater Investigative Units to 
investigate allegations of criminal violations of section 3261 of title 
18, United States Code, by contract personnel.
  (b) Responsibilities of Theater Investigative Unit.--The Theater 
Investigative Unit established for a theater of operations shall--
          (1) investigate reports that raise reasonable suspicion of 
        criminal misconduct by contract personnel;
          (2) investigate reports of fatalities resulting from the use 
        of force by contract personnel; and
          (3) upon conclusion of an investigation of alleged criminal 
        misconduct, refer the case to the Attorney General of the 
        United States for further action, as appropriate in the 
        discretion of the Attorney General.
  (c) Responsibilities of Federal Bureau of Investigation.--
          (1) Resources.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation shall ensure that each Theater Investigative Unit 
        has adequate resources and personnel to carry out its 
        responsibilities.
          (2) Notification.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation shall notify Congress whenever a Theater 
        Investigative Unit is established or terminated in accordance 
        with this section.
  (d) Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies.--An agency operating 
in an area, or in close proximity to an area (as designated by the 
Department of Defense), where the Armed Forces is conducting a 
contingency operation shall cooperate with and support the activities 
of the Theater Investigative Unit. Any investigation carried out by the 
Inspector General of an agency shall be coordinated with the activities 
of the Theater Investigative Unit as appropriate.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Covered contract.--The term ``covered contract'' means an 
        agreement--
                  (A) that is--
                          (i) a prime contract awarded by an agency;
                          (ii) a subcontract at any tier under any 
                        prime contract awarded by an agency; or
                          (iii) a task order issued under a task or 
                        delivery order contract entered into by an 
                        agency; and
                  (B) according to which the work under such contract, 
                subcontract, or task order is carried out in a region 
                outside the United States in which the Armed Forces are 
                conducting a contingency operation.
          (2) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given the 
        term ``Executive agency'' in section 105 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
          (3) Contingency operation.--The term ``contingency 
        operation'' has the meaning given the term section 101(13) of 
        title 10, United States Code.
          (4) Contractor.--The term ``contractor'' means an entity 
        performing a covered contract.
          (5) Contract personnel.--The term ``contract personnel'' 
        means persons assigned by a contractor (including 
        subcontractors at any tier) to perform work under a covered 
        contract.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

  (a) Applicability.--The provisions of this Act shall apply to all 
covered contracts and all covered contract personnel in which the work 
under the contract is carried out in an area, or in close proximity to 
an area (as designated by the Department of Defense), where the Armed 
Forces is conducting a contingency operationon on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
  (b) Immediate Effectiveness.--The provisions of this Act shall enter 
into effect immediately upon the enactment of this Act.
  (c) Implementation.--With respect to covered contracts and covered 
contract personnel discussed in subsection (a)(1), the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the head of any other agency to 
which this Act applies, shall have 90 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act to ensure compliance with the provisions of this 
Act.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 2740, the ``MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 
2007,'' would make contractors and contract personnel under 
Federal contracts criminally liable for crimes committed 
overseas. It would amend the Military Extraterritorial 
Jurisdiction Act (``MEJA'')\1\, which criminalizes offenses 
committed outside the United States by members of the Armed 
Forces and certain Defense Department contractors, but does not 
cover all contractors providing services in an overseas 
military operation. In addition to closing this gap in current 
law, H.R. 2740 would designate the Justice Department to be the 
lead agency responsible for investigating allegations of 
contractor criminal misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\18 U.S.C. Sec. 3261 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    An estimated 180,000 contractors are currently working in 
Iraq, and thousands more are working in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere.\2\ Unfortunately, the current law does not make all 
of these contractors accountable for their criminal conduct. 
For example, contractors hired through the Defense Department 
are subject to both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 
MEJA, while contractors who commit crimes on Federal property 
may be prosecuted under the USA PATRIOT Act. The vast majority 
of armed contractors performing security functions overseas, 
however, are not subject to any of these laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\T. Christian Miller, Private Contractors Outnumber U.S. Troops 
in Iraq, Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEJA is also limited jurisdictionally. As originally 
enacted in 2000, the Act authorized Federal courts to have 
jurisdiction over only civilian employees, contractors, and 
subcontractors affiliated with the Defense Department who 
commit crimes overseas. In 2005, the Act was amended to expand 
the court's jurisdiction to include employees of any other 
Federal agency ``supporting the mission of the Department of 
Defense overseas.''\3\ In practice, however, many contractors 
are not contracted through the Defense Department, but through 
other agencies such as USAID or the Department of Interior, and 
they do not work directly in support of Defense Department 
missions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\18 U.S.C. Sec. 3267 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although not affiliated with the Defense Department, these 
contractors usually work under the aegis of the United States 
government, in pursuit of our Nation's objectives, and on 
activities that directly impact the success of United States 
military and civilian missions overseas. Nevertheless, these 
contractors are not subject to any applicable law imposing 
criminal liability for criminal actions that they commit. It is 
essential that the Federal Government have a mechanism for 
holding such contractors accountable in the event of criminal 
misconduct.
    At the time of this report, Congressional and 
Administration authorities were investigating an incident in 
which at least 11 Iraqi civilians were apparently killed by 
employees of Blackwater, a contracting firm operating under the 
State Department.\4\ The incident enraged the Iraqi government, 
which accused the firm of shooting civilians with impunity. 
Defense Secretary Robert Gates also expressed ``real concerns'' 
about lack of oversight of such contractors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Peter Spiegel, State Department Intercedes in BlackWater Probe, 
Los Angeles Times, Sept. 26, 2007.
    \5\Jamie McIntyre, Defense Secretary Sends Team to Review Iraq 
Contractors, Cnn.com, Sept. 26, 2007, at http://www.cnn.com/2007/
POLITICS/09/26/contractor.review
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the lack of prosecutions--successful or 
otherwise--further underscores the inadequacy of current law. 
At this time, there are 17 pending cases of detainee abuse, 
including abuses that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in 
Iraq, with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District 
of Virginia.\6\ In some of these cases, the Army has found 
``probable cause'' that a crime has been committed, and 
referred the case to the Justice Department for prosecution. In 
addition, the press reports that there are hundreds of serious 
incident reports voluntarily filed by contractors.\7\ None of 
these cases, however, has been prosecuted; and the reason for 
failure to do so is not known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed 
Overseas: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 
Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong. (2007) 
(testimony of Erica Razook).
    \7\Id.; see also Steve Fainaru, A Chaotic Day on Baghdad's Airport 
Road, Wash. Post, Apr. 15, 2007, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, 
there has been only one successful prosecution of a civilian 
contractor for wrongdoing, which involved the conviction of a 
CIA contractor for beating a detainee to death,\8\ while, in 
comparison, there have been more than four dozen courts-martial 
commenced against uniformed personnel with respect to law-of-
war issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Yochi Dreazen, New Scrutiny for Iraq Contractors--Killing by 
Blackwater Worker Poses Dilemma for U.S. Authorities, Wall St. J., May 
14, 2007, at A4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 2740, the ``MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 
2007,'' was introduced by Representative David Price (D-NC) on 
June 15, 2007. The bill ensures that entities under Federal 
contract who commit crimes overseas do not escape 
accountability simply because they are not deemed to be 
``supporting the mission of the Department of Defense.'' H.R. 
2740 also requires the Inspector General of the Justice 
Department to submit a report to Congress regarding the 
identification and prosecution of alleged contractor abuses 
overseas. This requirement is intended to address the Justice 
Department's apparent failure to aggressively investigate and 
prosecute crimes committed by contractors over which it 
currently has jurisdiction. Finally, H.R. 2740 requires the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a Theater 
Investigative Unit to investigate reports of criminal 
misconduct in regions where contractors are working. This is 
intended to underscore the importance of providing resources to 
enforce the law.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on H.R. 2740, on June 
19, 2007. Testimony was received from Erica Razook, Legal 
Advisor to the Business and Human Rights Program, Amnesty 
International; and Scott Horton, Adjunct Professor of Law, 
Columbia University School of Law.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security met in open session and ordered the bill, 
H.R. 2740, favorably reported, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. On August 2, 2007, the Committee met in open session 
and ordered the bill favorably reported with an amendment, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 2740.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2740, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                Washington, DC, September 20, 2007.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2740, the MEJA 
Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable Lamar S. Smith.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2740--MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007

                                SUMMARY

    The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (MEJA) Expansion 
and Enforcement Act of 2007 would direct the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) to establish special units to investigate 
criminal offenses by contract personnel operating in the 
vicinity of U.S. armed forces overseas. In addition, the bill 
would broaden the coverage of the laws relating to misconduct 
by such civilian contract personnel. CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 2740 would cost $23 million over the 2008-
2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 
Enacting the bill could affect direct spending and revenues, 
but we estimate that any such effects would not be significant.
    H.R. 2740 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal 
governments.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2740 is shown in the 
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 750 (administration of justice).

                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2008   2009   2010   2011   2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level              3      5      5      5      5

Estimated Outlays                          3      5      5      5      5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2740 would have 
discretionary costs of $23 million over the 2008-2012 period. 
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the necessary amounts will 
be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that 
spending will follow historical patterns for similar 
activities. In addition, CBO estimates that the bill could have 
an insignificant effect on direct spending and revenues.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
    H.R. 2740 would direct the FBI to establish Theater 
Investigative Units to investigate criminal offenses by 
contract personnel operating in the vicinity of U.S. armed 
forces overseas. Based on the extent of current military 
operations, CBO anticipates that the FBI would likely establish 
two or three such units, including one each for Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Because relatively few offenses are committed by 
contract personnel, we expect that the FBI would need to hire 
no more than 30 persons to investigate cases under the bill. 
Once fully phased in, CBO estimates that the costs of those 
additional employees would be about $5 million annually, 
including salaries, benefits, and support costs (including 
additional security measures required for war zone operations).
    For this estimate, CBO assumes that there will continue to 
be a substantial number of U.S. forces operating in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, or other locations overseas over the next five 
years. If the size of the overseas forces declines 
significantly over that period, the cost of implementing H.R. 
2740 could decline as well.
Direct Spending and Revenues
    Enacting H.R. 2740 could increase Federal revenues and 
direct spending as a result of additional criminal penalties 
assessed for misconduct by contract personnel. Collections of 
criminal penalties are recorded in the budget as revenues, 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO 
estimates, however, that any additional revenues and direct 
spending that would result from enacting the bill would not be 
significant because of the relatively small number of cases 
likely to be involved.

              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

    H.R. 2740 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of 
State, local, or tribal governments.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell 
    (225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2940)

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
2740 amends existing law to make contractors and contract 
personnel under Federal contract criminally liable for crimes 
committed overseas.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, section 8, clauses 10, 14, 16, 
and 18 of the Constitution.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 2740 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short title. Section 1 sets forth the short title 
of the bill as the ``MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act of 
2007.''
    Sec. 2. Legal Status of Contract Personnel. Section 2 
provides that all contractor personnel operating in contingency 
operations are accountable under the Military Extraterritorial 
Jurisdiction Act. This provision extends the Act's jurisdiction 
to contractors working in an area, or close proximity to an 
area, where the United States is conducting a military 
operation. As a result, all private security contractors in 
these areas, not just those contracted through or supporting 
Defense Department missions, are made accountable under Federal 
law. This change in the law responds to the current situation 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, where a large number of contractors 
are working pursuant to contractual agreements with a variety 
of Federal agencies, including the State Department and the 
Department of the Interior.
    Section 2 also requires the Inspector General of the 
Justice Department to submit a report on the Department's 
efforts to identify and prosecute alleged contractor abuses in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. Pursuant to chapter 212 of title 18 of 
the United States Code, the Justice Department and the Federal 
courts are responsible for prosecuting and hearing cases, 
respectively, under MEJA. In addition, section 3.3.3 of Defense 
Instruction 3040.21, ``Contractors Accompanying the Force,'' 
states that ``only the Department of Justice may prosecute 
misconduct under applicable Federal laws.'' Accordingly, 
section 2 directs the Justice Department Inspector General to 
report to Congress on the number of incidents of alleged 
misconduct reported to the Department, the number of 
investigations undertaken by the Department, and the number of 
criminal cases opened and closed by the Department. The report 
must also include findings and recommendations about the number 
of criminal cases prosecuted by the Department under MEJA.
    Sec. 3. Federal Bureau of Investigation Investigative Unit 
for Contingency Operations. Section 3 requires the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to establish a Theater 
Investigative Unit to investigate reports of criminal 
misconduct in theaters in which contractors are working. The 
provision gives the FBI Director the discretion to devote 
adequate resources to these activities, so the Director has the 
flexibility to ensure that ``unneeded resources'' will not be 
utilized for this purpose. The section also requires the FBI to 
investigate reports of fatalities resulting from the use of 
force by contract personnel. In the event of force by self-
defense, the term ``investigate'' is worded broadly enough to 
allow an initial examination to confirm self-defense, without 
requiring a long, laborious, costly investigation.
    The Committee notes that the investigation and prosecution 
of criminal misconduct by contractors is integral to 
maintaining support among host nation citizens for United 
States troops and missions as well as to ensuring the integrity 
of such missions. Accordingly, the Committee urges the Bureau 
to ensure that it provides sufficient resources and agents for 
assertive investigations into allegations of such crimes.
    Sec. 4. Definitions. Section 4 defines various terms in the 
bill. In particular, the definition of ``contingency 
operation'' has the same meaning as the term is given in 
section 101(13) of title 10 of the United States Code.
    Sec. 5. Effective Date. Section 5 provides that the Act is 
applicable to circumstances that take place where the Armed 
Forces is conducting a contingency operation, on or after the 
date of enactment of the bill.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          CHAPTER 212--MILITARY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Sec. 3261. Criminal offenses committed by certain members of the Armed 
                    Forces and by persons employed by or accompanying 
                    the Armed Forces outside the United States

  (a) Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States that 
would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more 
than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the 
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
States--
          (1) while employed by or accompanying the Armed 
        Forces outside the United States; [or]
          (2) while a member of the Armed Forces subject to 
        chapter 47 of title 10 (the Uniform Code of Military 
        Justice)[,]; or
          (3) while employed under a contract (or subcontract 
        at any tier) awarded by any department or agency of the 
        United States, where the work under such contract is 
        carried out in an area, or in close proximity to an 
        area (as designated by the Department of Defense), 
        where the Armed Forces is conducting a contingency 
        operation,
shall be punished as provided for that offense.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 3267. Definitions

   As used in this chapter:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The term ``contingency operation'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 101(a)(13) of title 
        10.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  

```