It’s no secret that United States uniform companies are producing less and less of their products at home. Indeed, as the country became flooded with lessexpensive imports over the past two decades, many factories relocated off shore in an effort to compete and to avoid certain extinction. And the closing of businesses means the loss of jobs. In the past three years alone, an additional 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, with no reversal in sight. As the United States economy becomes more global and continues its shift toward services and high tech, the term “Made in America” runs the risk of becoming a quaint phrase from the past, a relic of a bygone era much the way “golly gee” and “groovey” before it.

In light of this, UniformMarket began to question the relevancy of measures designed to buttress and encourage manufacturing in the United States. Of particular interest was the Berry Amendment, a law that in part applies to the uniform and apparel industries. Does it keep jobs here? Can it be enforced? Does it create opportunity or are there too many loopholes for abuse? Does the law even matter anymore?

The answers are a resounding maybe. It depends to whom you’re talking and individual perspectives. But before going into details, a primer. Originally enacted in 1941, the Berry Amendment was effectively reiterated as a part of each subsequent defense appropriations act until it was codified as 10 U.S.C. 2533a in 2002 by section 832 of Public Law 107-107. Regarding purchases of textile and apparel items, the Amendment requires that funds made available to the Department of Defense (DoD) may not be used to purchase clothing; tents, tarpaulins, or covers; cotton and other natural fiber products, woven silk or woven silk blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric, canvas products, or wool (whether in the form of fiber or yarn) or items of individual equipment manufactured from or containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials unless it is grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.

In other words, covered end items, components, and materials purchased with funds made available to DoD must be produced wholly in the United States. The law is implemented through the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) at Subpart 225.7002. The Berry Amendment contains several exceptions, including acquisitions that are at or below a certain threshold and those items purchased outside the United States in support of combat operations.

In addition, waivers to Berry Amendment restrictions on foreign purchases are permitted if the Secretary concerned determines that the items in question cannot be acquired when needed in a satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity at U.S. market prices. Waivers are uncommon, with only 36 textile and apparel related exceptions since 1998.

But when they do occur, they are not without controversy. The flap several years back over the procurement of a black beret illustrates some of the pitfalls associated with waivers of Berry Amendment restrictions. To mark the army’s anniversary in the new millenium, its Chief of Staff required that all soldiers be issued new berets by June 14, 2001. With only eight months to fulfill the requirement and only one known U.S. beret manufacturer, the procuring agency obtained a Berry Amendment waiver so that some of the items could be obtained from suppliers outside the United States. One of the foreign manufacturers had a factory in China, and many of the berets were being made there. Moreover, prices for the overseas berets were 14% higher than that of the American supplier. And in the end, the June 14th deadline became impossible to meet, raising questions as to the urgency in the first place. Hearings were held, with Congress questioning the propriety of the Berry Amendment waiver, and many in the industry wondering aloud if the contracts were politically motivated.