
 
Updated December 18, 2018
Defense Primer: The Berry and Kissell Amendments
Two U.S. laws require the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Department of Homeland Security from using appropriated 
and some agencies of the Department of Homeland Security 
funds to buy foreign-made textiles, clothing, and footwear. 
(DHS) to purchase only domestic products for certain 
Food, hand tools, and measuring tools are excluded.  
military and nonmilitary purposes. These laws are known as 
Although the Kissell Amendment as enacted applies to all 
the Berry Amendment and the Kissell Amendment. 
agencies of DHS, in practice its restrictions apply only to 
Congress typically debates the Berry Amendment in the 
the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security 
context of the annual National Defense Authorization Act.  
Administration (TSA). The reason for this is that, prior to 
The laws are controversial. Their supporters argue they help 
the Kissell Amendment’s passage, the United States had 
preserve the U.S. industrial base and create domestic 
entered into commitments under the World Trade 
manufacturing jobs. Opponents believe the laws give 
Organization Agreement on Government Procurement, and 
monopolies to certain companies and raise the 
under various free-trade agreements, to open U.S. 
government’s procurement costs.   
government procurement to imported goods. The Kissell 
Amendment applies only where it does not contravene 
The Berry Amendment 
those commitments. 
The Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. §2533a) is the popular 
Procurement by other DHS agencies, including the Secret 
name of a 1941 law enacted as part of the Fifth 
Service and Customs and Border Protection, is subject to 
Supplemental National Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 
the less-stringent Buy American Act. For these DHS 
77-29). It became a permanent part of the U.S. Code when 
agencies, the Buy American Act is also waived pursuant to 
it was codified by the FY2002 National Defense 
the Trade Agreements Act (P.L. 96-39). Thus, they can 
Authorization Act (P.L. 107-107).  
purchase textiles and apparel products from more than 100 
The Berry Amendment requires certain items purchased by 
countries if certain conditions are met. 
DOD to be 100% domestic in origin. The requirement 
generally extends to inputs into the purchased items. The 
Exceptions 
items covered by the law have varied over the years. At 
The Berry Amendment includes various exceptions. For 
present, the Berry Amendment affects DOD purchases of 
example, DOD can buy from non-U.S. sources when  
textiles, clothing, footwear, food, and hand and measuring 
  products are unavailable from American manufacturers 
tools. These must be “entirely grown, reprocessed, reused, 
at satisfactory quality and sufficient quantity at U.S. 
or produced in the United States.” Unless exemptions laid 
market prices;  
out in the law apply, the entire production process of 
  items are used in support of combat operations or 
affected products, from the production of raw materials to 
contingency operations; 
the manufacture of all components to final assembly, must 
  products are intended for resale at retail stores such as 
be performed in the United States.  
military commissaries or post exchanges; and  
The Berry Amendment mandates a much higher level of 
  the purchase is part of a contract whose value is at or 
domestic content than the Buy American Act of 1933, 
below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), 
which generally governs the procurements of other federal 
generally $150,000, in which case the item can be 
agencies. Under the Buy American Act, the final product 
sourced overseas. 
must be mined, produced, or manufactured in the United 
The Kissell Amendment has some similar exceptions, but 
States, and if manufactured, either at least 50% of the costs 
one notable difference. Manufacturers in Mexico, Canada, 
of its components must be manufactured in the United 
and Chile can be treated as “American” sources under 
States, or the end product must be a commercially available 
Kissell because of existing trade agreements. 
off-the-shelf item.   
Manufacturing Affected by Berry 
Sales to DOD in the five Berry-applicable product 
A majority of DOD’s procurement contract obligations for 
categories totaled $3.1 billion in FY2018. DOD 
Berry-applicable items are related to food and apparel, 
expenditures on Berry Amendment products accounted for 
roughly 1% of the department’s spending on products and 
according to data from the FPDS-NG. Of all DOD’s 
reported contracts for Berry-related items, roughly $1 
services in FY2018, according to figures from the Federal 
billion per year fall below the SAT, and are therefore not 
Procurement Data System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG), 
subject to Berry requirements.  
the primary source for federal procurement data. 
Food 
The Kissell Amendment 
The Berry Amendment requires DOD to purchase most 
The Kissell Amendment (6 U.S.C. §453b) was enacted as 
food for military services from sources that manufacture, 
Section 604 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
grow, or process food in the United States. DLA reported 
Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). It is modeled on the Berry 
about $1.2 billion in contract obligations in FY2018 to feed 
Amendment. Since August 2009, it has prohibited the 
U.S. troops worldwide, buying everything from meat and 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Defense Primer: The Berry and Kissell Amendments 
seafood to snack foods and beverages. DLA’s leading food 
Manufacturing Affected by Kissell 
suppliers include Tyson Foods, Kraft Heinz, Trident 
The Kissell Amendment is more limited than Berry because 
Seafoods, Pepsico, and General Mills. The most restrictive 
it applies only to textile, apparel, and footwear products. In 
Berry-related provision applies to seafood; it requires that 
FY2018, the Coast Guard and TSA combined purchased 
DOD purchase only fish, shellfish, and seafood taken from 
more than $30 million of apparel for Kissell-related items 
the sea in U.S.-flagged vessels or caught in U.S. waters and 
above the SAT. Purchases subject to the Berry and Kissell 
processed in the United States or on a U.S.-flagged ship. 
Amendments represented around 3% of the $65 billion of 
Meals ready-to-eat (MREs) form a major part of DOD food 
textile and apparel shipments from U.S. factories in 2017. 
sourced under the Berry Amendment. AmeriQual, 
Congressional Debate 
SoPakCo, and Wornick are the largest suppliers of MREs. 
Some Members of Congress have defended the Berry and 
The DOD market for Berry-compliant MREs was roughly 
Kissell Amendments as means of protecting U.S. jobs and 
$900 million in FY2018. 
ensuring continued DOD access to basic supplies should 
Textiles, Apparel, and Footwear 
wars or other events interfere with imports. Some 
At nearly $1.9 billion in FY2018, DOD’s procurement of 
lawmakers also have asserted that production of 
clothing, textiles, and footwear made up a large share of 
government uniforms outside the United States raises 
DOD’s contract obligations subject to the Berry 
national security concerns. 
Amendment.  
Critics argue the two amendments increase government 
One of the largest military-apparel contractors is the 
procurement costs and, by offering guaranteed markets, 
Federal Prison Industries (FPI), also known as UNICOR, 
may diminish domestic manufacturers’ incentives to 
which supplies prison-manufactured apparel. DOD’s 
improve productivity. They also point out the amendments 
awarding of clothing contracts to this government-owned 
are inconsistent with modern practices in manufacturing, 
supplier has proven controversial in both Congress and the 
which often involve supply chains that source components 
apparel industry. Critics have voiced concern that prison 
and raw materials from multiple countries.  
industrial programs pose a threat to private enterprise and to 
The Berry and Kissell Amendments raise several issues: If 
the jobs of residents who are not incarcerated. Among other 
the United States does not produce a solely domestic item, 
issues, critics have challenged FPI/UNICOR’s mandatory 
or if U.S. manufacturers are at maximum production 
source provision, which could require DOD to purchase 
capability, should DOD or DHS restrict procurement from 
from FPI/UNICOR factories if they can provide the desired 
foreign sources? And do U.S. national security interests and 
product, within the required time frame, and at a 
industrial base concerns justify these laws? 
competitive price. In FY2018, DOD accounted for about 
Over the years, changes have been proposed to the Berry 
90% of FPI/UNICOR’s textile and apparel sales.   
and Kissell Amendments. One recent proposal would have 
Other large contractors of military apparel are the National 
reinstated the Berry Amendment’s domestic sourcing 
Industries for the Blind, M&M Manufacturing, Ceradyne, 
requirement for stainless steel flatware. Another past 
and American Apparel. Berry requires the manufacture of 
proposal would have expanded the Kissell Amendment’s 
DOD apparel in the United States, Puerto Rico, or other 
domestic content requirements to additional agencies within 
U.S. territories.  
DHS. Other lawmakers have offered bills that would have 
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
eliminated FPI/UNICOR’s federal contract mandate and 
2017 (P.L. 114-328), Congress extended the Berry 
made changes to the SAT threshold, such as raising the 
Amendment by requiring DOD to provide 100% U.S.-made 
Berry and Kissell SAT thresholds to $500,000. The higher 
running shoes for recruits entering basic training. 
limit would reduce the number of purchases covered by the 
Previously, DOD provided vouchers to recruits to purchase 
Berry and Kissell amendments, making foreign suppliers 
athletic footwear, which did not have to be domestic in 
eligible to bid on more DOD and DHS procurement 
origin. DLA estimates potential demand for as many as 
contracts. 
250,000 pairs of running shoes annually. The new 
requirement took effect in March 2017.  
Relevant Statutes 
DOD’s direct purchases of footwear, such as combat boots 
Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 2533a—Berry Amendment 
and military dress shoes, in FY2018 totaled about $208 
Title 6, U.S. Code, Section 453b—Kissell Amendment 
million. Some manufacturers claim they have remained 
viable because they make millions of pairs of shoes 
annually for the military. While the United States is a major 
CRS Product 
manufacturer of safety footwear, about 99% of shoes sold 
CRS Report R44850, Buying American: Protecting 
domestically are imported. 
U.S. Manufacturing Through the Berry and Kissell 
Amendments, by Michaela D. Platzer  
Hand or Measuring Tools 
Hand or measuring tools make up a relatively small share of 
DOD’s total Berry-applicable contract procurement 
 
obligations, at about $90 million in FY2018. Leading 
Michaela D. Platzer, Specialist in Industrial Organization 
vendors are Federal Resources Supply and Kipper Tool. 
and Business   
IF10609
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov 
Defense Primer: The Berry and Kissell Amendments 
 
 
 
Disclaimer 
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to 
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. 
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has 
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the 
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be 
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include 
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you 
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. 
 
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10609 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED