[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15754-15757]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     BERRY AMENDMENT EXTENSION ACT

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3116) to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from 
procuring certain items directly related to the national security 
unless the items are grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the 
United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

[[Page 15755]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3116

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Berry Amendment Extension 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT IMPOSED ON DEPARTMENT OF 
                   HOMELAND SECURITY; EXCEPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle H of title VIII of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 890. BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT; EXCEPTIONS.

       ``(a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsections (c) 
     through (e), the Secretary may not procure an item described 
     in subsection (b) if the item is not grown, reprocessed, 
     reused, or produced in the United States.
       ``(b) Covered Items.--
       ``(1) In general.--An item referred to in subsection (a) is 
     any item described in paragraph (2), if the item is directly 
     related to the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       ``(2) Items described.--An item described in this paragraph 
     is any article or item of--
       ``(A) clothing and the materials and components thereof, 
     other than sensors, electronics, or other items added to, and 
     not normally associated with, clothing (and the materials and 
     components thereof);
       ``(B) tents, tarpaulins, or covers;
       ``(C) cotton and other natural fiber products, woven silk 
     or woven silk blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, 
     synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric (including all 
     textile fibers and yarns that are for use in such fabrics), 
     canvas products, or wool (whether in the form of fiber or 
     yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured 
     articles); or
       ``(D) any item of individual equipment manufactured from or 
     containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials.
       ``(c) Availability Exception.--Subsection (a) does not 
     apply to the extent that the Secretary determines that 
     satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity of any such 
     article or item described in subsection (b)(2) grown, 
     reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States cannot 
     be procured as and when needed.
       ``(d) Exception for Certain Procurements Outside the United 
     States.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the following:
       ``(1) Procurements by vessels in foreign waters.
       ``(2) Emergency procurements.
       ``(e) Exception for Small Purchases.--Subsection (a) does 
     not apply to purchases for amounts not greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold referred to in section 
     2304(g) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(f) Applicability to Contracts and Subcontracts for 
     Procurement of Commercial Items.--This section is applicable 
     to contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of 
     commercial items notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 430).
       ``(g) Geographic Coverage.--In this section, the term 
     `United States' includes the possessions of the United 
     States.
       ``(h) Notification Required Within 7 Days After Contract 
     Award if Certain Exceptions Applied.--In the case of any 
     contract for the procurement of an item described in 
     subsection (b)(2), if the Secretary applies an exception set 
     forth in subsection (c) with respect to that contract, the 
     Secretary shall, not later than 7 days after the award of the 
     contract, post a notification that the exception has been 
     applied.
       ``(i) Training.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     member of the acquisition workforce who participates 
     personally and substantially in the acquisition of textiles 
     on a regular basis receives training on the requirements of 
     this section and the regulations implementing this section.
       ``(2) Inclusion of information in new training programs.--
     The Secretary shall ensure that any training program for the 
     acquisition workforce developed or implemented after the date 
     of the enactment of this section includes comprehensive 
     information on the requirements described in paragraph (1).
       ``(j) Consistency With International Agreements.--This 
     section shall be applied in a manner consistent with United 
     States obligations under international agreements.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 890 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to contracts entered into by the Department of 
     Homeland Security on and after the date occurring 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Richardson) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

                              {time}  1040


                             General Leave

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Berry Amendment 
Extension Act, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 3116, the Berry Amendment Extension Act, was introduced by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell). This legislation would 
apply procurement requirements that have been in place since 1941 at 
the Department of Defense to the Department of Homeland Security.
  As approved in 1941, the purpose of the Berry Amendment was to 
protect the United States from our enemies by requiring that the 
military maintain rules and regulations regarding the uniforms worn by 
our soldiers.
  Extension of the Berry Amendment to the Department of Homeland 
Security is the necessary thing to do from a security standpoint. 
Currently, there are not any requirements on where uniforms worn by 
enforcing agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration 
and Customs and Border Protection are manufactured.
  In light of ongoing threats which require the utmost protection of 
our safety resources and personnel, the extension of the Berry 
Amendment is appropriate. Further, the failure to utilize American 
invested workers to produce military resources is not only detrimental 
to American manufacturing jobs, but it is also detrimental to our 
Nation's security.
  A beneficial side effect of the Berry Amendment is its impact on 
jobs. Data shows that the Berry Amendment has allowed for the 
sustainment of over 450,000 textile and manufacturing jobs here in the 
United States. Further, using data from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, it is estimated that for every $1 billion in manufacturing 
output, 12,500 jobs are created in the United States.
  During these trying economic times, H.R. 3116 provides us with a 
unique opportunity to create new jobs here in America, thereby giving 
U.S. workers any opportunity to ``Make it in America.'' This is where 
we all should stand.
  As a strong supporter of U.S. manufacturing, I believe that it is our 
duty as a Congress to protect American jobs through our support of 
those small businesses that manufacture high quality textile products 
here in the United States.
  Lastly, let us not forget most importantly that H.R. 3116 takes away 
a vulnerability in the procurement system. The law enforcement 
officials who work to protect our southern border--and northern border, 
for that matter as well--have witnessed drug couriers using phony 
uniforms to avoid detection in the smuggling of illegal drugs into the 
United States.
  Considering the loose regulations on the location and types of 
facilities that manufacture uniforms worn by those who protect our 
Nation, we must take necessary steps to prevent smugglers from using 
our own uniforms to assist in their illegal activities and, worse, 
highlight vulnerabilities in the U.S. Homeland Security environment.
  I fully support this legislation, H.R. 3116, under consideration and 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for its passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3116, the Berry 
Amendment Extension Act.
  This bill amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the 
Secretary of Homeland Security from procuring certain items--including 
textiles such as clothing, tents, canvas and cotton--unless they are 
grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States. By 
requiring the Secretary to procure certain items from

[[Page 15756]]

within the U.S., this bill takes an important step in promoting U.S. 
job growth and supporting large and small businesses alike.
  The Department of Homeland Security employs over 150,000 uniformed 
men and women who are dedicated to the Department's vital mission of 
protecting the homeland against a range of threats. The U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection, for example, employs over 21,000 officers and 
20,000 Border Patrol agents, and these numbers continue to grow. The 
Transportation Security Administration has 48,000 officers. The U.S. 
Coast Guard has over 50,000 uniformed personnel. These growing numbers 
represent an opportunity to produce uniforms and other materials in the 
U.S. to support their mission, rather than overseas. This, in turn, 
will help create American jobs in this troubled economy.
  The bill provides for exceptions in certain situations, including 
procurements by vessels in foreign waters, emergency procurements, low-
cost procurements, and if items of sufficient quantity or quality are 
not available when needed.
  The bill also includes language requiring its provisions to be 
applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under 
international agreements.
  H.R. 3116 is a commonsense piece of legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).
  Mr. KISSELL. I would like to thank my colleague from California for 
yielding the time and also for her strong support for made in America 
and U.S. manufacturing.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3116, the Berry 
Amendment Extension Act. For over 60 years, the Berry Amendment has 
served as the law by which the Department of Defense has had to 
purchase uniforms for our military. It has served its purpose well in 
protecting the men and women of our services with having the best 
uniforms and also protecting Americans that make these uniforms in 
providing for the jobs thereof.
  In January of 2009, shortly after I was sworn in as a freshman 
Congressman, folks came to me and asked me if I would help extend the 
Berry Act in homeland security to just the TSA part. Now, I could not 
understand why this had not been done before, but I was assured it had 
been tried and had been unsuccessful because there was apparently a lot 
of special interest that was in opposition to this.
  Having worked 27 years in textiles myself, I gladly took on this 
initiative, and with a lot of help, we were able to overcome the 
special interest, and we were able to get the extension of the Berry 
Act to the amendment for the Recovery Act applying just to TSA. We 
immediately went to work to introduce legislation that would complete 
this process by making all of Homeland Security Berry compliant.
  I'm glad to say with a lot of support, and a lot of bipartisan 
support, today we are successful in bringing that bill to the floor. It 
makes sense. It's only logical for all of the reasons that have been 
given that we extend to Homeland Security and all the people that work 
there, whether it be Border Patrol, TSA, ICE, Coast Guard, and Secret 
Service, in whatever function that they have, the uniforms that are the 
best, and the best is always made in the United States.
  Textiles have suffered a lot through the years. It's estimated that, 
since December of 2000, the United States has suffered a $575 billion 
deficit in textiles and apparel, a loss of over 587,000 jobs. In the 
most recent economic downturn, textiles has lost 60,000 jobs with the 
closing of over 44 textiles plants.
  But textiles has not gone away. Textiles is energetic. It's creative. 
It represents the American entrepreneurial spirit, and it is surviving. 
This bill is a logical step to not only protect our Nation's security 
by having American uniforms on those that protect us in Homeland 
Security, but also protects American security by protecting American 
jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, just two examples of the good that came out of just the 
TSA amendment. We received a letter shortly after we passed this act 
that was from Arkansas. Twenty people wrote to thank us for passing 
that act because it saved their jobs. Now, that's just 20 people, but 
that's 20 families in an economic downturn that didn't have to worry 
about jobs. Richmond Yarns, located in a small town near my hometown, 
credits the TSA amendment for not only their survival but creating 80 
additional jobs. We have seen this and heard this time and time again 
from just the amendment that we passed with TSA. We will see this 
expand even further when we pass this legislation.
  I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
commonsense H.R. 3116, the Berry Amendment Extension Act.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress who grew 
up in a family that depended on a textile plant check to put food on 
the table, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to a real champion of the 
textile industry, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. COBLE. I thank my colleague from Alabama. You indicate your 
involvement and exposure to textile employment, as did my friend from 
North Carolina. My late mom was a textile worker, so I, too, appreciate 
the significance of textile employment.
  The Berry amendment requires the U.S. Defense Department to buy 
American for certain products that are judged to be essential to our 
military readiness. Buy American means that 100 percent of the product 
is produced and manufactured in the United States.
  The Berry amendment helps ensure that we have a reliable domestic 
source for certain vital goods during time of war, and that our troops 
are equipped with the highest quality equipment. The Berry amendment 
has worked well. I am not aware of any situation, Mr. Speaker, where it 
has limited the ability of our military to procure items, and it has 
ensured that our troops receive the highest quality essential 
equipment. Finally, it helps contain costs in the long term.
  H.R. 3116 will expand this requirement to the Department of Homeland 
Security. DHS, as we all know, has grown. And while the Berry amendment 
has been successful for our military, I see no reason why it would not 
be equally successful for DHS. The requirement is not unlimited because 
government procurement policies are also covered by the World Trade 
Organization rules. Berry-type requirements are only permissible for 
agencies that are critical to national security. As a result, Mr. 
Speaker, it is my understanding that H.R. 3116 would only apply to the 
Transportation Security Administration because of its national security 
role in securing our various and sundry airports.
  I am pleased that President Obama supported the Berry amendment while 
he was serving in the Senate and hope that his views on this matter 
have not changed, and I think they probably have not.
  The Berry amendment, furthermore, has been endorsed by AMTAC, the 
American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, and NCTO, the National 
Council for Textile Organizations. Economically, this requirement makes 
a lot of sense. Currently the Berry amendment is responsible for 
approximately 70,000 jobs, half of which are in the domestic textile 
industry. Conservative estimates from textile industry associations 
indicate another 21,000 jobs could be created by extending the Berry 
amendment to the Department of Homeland Security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this Berry amendment, a very 
worthwhile proposal.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I urge Members to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3116, the Berry amendment, extends the wisdom of 
our

[[Page 15757]]

forefathers to properly secure our military uniforms to the 21st 
century of our extended protectors in homeland security such as the 
airport TSA workers and Customs and Border Protection workers. H.R. 
3116 is putting American workers and the American economy first by 
making it in America.
  I thank Mr. Kissell and Chairman Thompson for their leadership, and I 
encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to 
speak in support of H.R. 3116, the Berry Amendment Extension Act.
  As introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Kissell, H.R. 
3116 would require the Department of Homeland Security to purchase 
uniforms and textiles that are Made- in-America under the Berry 
Amendment, just as the Department of Defense has done since 1941.
  I am pleased to support this legislation which will serve as a means 
to support hardworking farmers and small textile manufacturers that 
are, unfortunately, becoming more and more uncommon in the United 
States.
  Moreover, as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I 
am always looking for ways to provide greater security for the United 
States. Representative Kissell's legislation does just that.
  At present, the uniforms worn by Department of Homeland Security 
personnel such as Customs and Border Protection Officers and 
Transportation Security Administration Officers are made in locations 
outside our Nation's borders.
  On August 31, 2010, the Washington Post reported that drug couriers 
often move illegal drugs across the United States-Mexico border through 
the use of disguises.
  Often times these ``cloners'' as they are referred to by law 
enforcement officials, wear false law enforcement uniforms made outside 
of the United States.
  Under current policy, there is nothing to prevent these ``cloners'' 
from obtaining uniforms from foreign factories and using them to 
transport illegal drugs and other contraband across our borders.
  By restricting the manufacturing of Department of Homeland Security 
uniforms to the United States, we will be taking a smart step forward 
to prevent foreign access to the badges, patches, and uniforms that 
identify our homeland security personnel.
  This legislation has the support of the American Manufacturing Trade 
Action Coalition, the National Council of Textile Organizations and the 
American Apparel and Footwear Association.
  Considering our Nation's current economic situation and the need to 
take every effort to secure our borders, I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting this legislation, which will take sensible steps to 
create opportunities for domestic manufacturing, promote job creation 
in the United States, and make our country safer.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3116, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________