10 U.S. Code § 2392 - Prohibition on use of funds to relieve economic dislocations

(a) In order to help avoid the uneconomic use of Department of Defense funds in the procurement of goods and services, the Congress finds that it is necessary to prohibit the use of such funds for certain purposes.
(b) No funds appropriated to or for the use of the Department of Defense may be used to pay, in connection with any contract awarded by the Department of Defense, a price differential for the purpose of relieving economic dislocations.


(Added Pub. L. 97–86, title IX, § 913(a)(1),Dec. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 1123.)
Contracts Made by Defense Logistics Agency; Payments of Price Differentials To Relieve Economic Dislocations; Test Program; Interim Reports

Pub. L. 97–252, title XI, § 1109,Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 746, as amended by Pub. L. 98–94, title XII, § 1205,Sept. 24, 1983, 97 Stat. 683; Pub. L. 98–525, title XII, § 1254,Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2611, authorized the Secretary of Defense to conduct a test program during fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985 to test the effect of exempting certain contracts of the Department of Defense from the provisions of this section and paying a price differential under such contracts for the purpose of relieving economic dislocations, provided that the Secretary could exempt any contract (other than a contract for the purchase of fuel) made by the Defense Logistics Agency during fiscal years 1983, 1984, and 1985 if the contract was to be awarded to an individual or firm located in a Labor Surplus Area, and directed the President to submit a report to Congress not later than Apr. 15, 1983, Apr. 15, 1984, and Apr. 15, 1985, on the implementation and results to that date of the program. Similar provisions were contained in Pub. L. 97–86, title IX, § 913(b), (c),Dec. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 1124.

The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.

The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013

An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

10 USCDescription of ChangeSession YearPublic LawStatutes at Large


LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.