On January 31, 2014, DOD issued a solicitation designed to conduct market research to assess the availability of American-made shoes fully compliant with the Berry Amendment. The solicitation appeared in Federal Business Opportunities, and stated that there is no current contract for shoes, or a guarantee that a contract is or will be forthcoming. Excerpts of the solicitation follow. Responses to the solicitation were requested by February 18, 2014. In order to assess the marketplace, we request interested providers identify all Berry Compliant Athletic (Running) shoes being sold in the commercial marketplace to include: (1) a general description of each item, including the various fits and sizes, (2) the volume of commercial sales for each of those products for the past 1 to 3 years, (3) cost and/or selling price, (4) manufacturing capacity of those items to include any minimum order quantities, economic production quantities as well as monthly and annual maximum production capabilities (5) production lead time and (6) manufacturing location. For those capable of manufacturing a domestically Compliant Athletic (Running) Shoe but have not yet produced or sold any, please provide, to the extent possible, the information requested above along with any additional actions you would need to take in order to make those products available in the commercial marketplace. Additionally, please be sure to confirm that your product offering is fully domestic, including all components materials and subcomponent assemblies. According to one press report, DLA has announced that four companies have reported being capable of producing 100% domestic, U.S.-made, athletic footwear for military personnel. P.L. 113-66 , the NDAA for FY2014 ( H.R. 3304 ) was signed into law on December 26, 2013. Some of the Berry Amendment-related provisions proposed in H.R. 1960 and S. 1197 were not incorporated into the enacted bill. A discussion was provided in the joint explanation statement which accompanied the bill. Excerpts appear below. The House bill contained a provision (Section 839) that would amend section 418 of title 37, United States Code, by requiring the Department of Defense to issue athletic footwear compliant with the requirement detailed in section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry in lieu of a cash allowance. The Senate committee reported bill contained no similar provision. The agreement does not contain the provision. We note that Congress passed the Berry Amendment in 1941 to ensure that American soldiers train and operate, to the greatest extent practicable, in American-made materials. The Berry Amendment specifically covers footwear listed in Federal Supply Class 8430 or 8435. The Army, in 2001, and the Air Force, in 2008, have moved away from issuing athletic footwear to new recruits. Instead, new recruits are given an allowance to acquire athletic footwear from the service exchange. During this period of time, no athletic footwear was available that could have met the requirements of the Berry Amendment without a waiver. It has been reported that at least one domestic contractor is now producing such footwear. Therefore, we direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to issue a Sources Sought to determine whether there are any domestic manufacturers of Berry Amendment compliant athletic footwear that meets the Department's requirements. We further direct that any responses to the Sources Sought be evaluated by the Defense Logistics Agency and an independent entity to determine whether (1) such offered athletic footwear meets the requirements of the Berry Amendment and (2) whether Department requirements are actually met. Such review should consider the various sizes and fits of athletic shoes offered, cost, and capacity of suppliers to meet military requirements. The House bill contained a provision (Section 1601) that would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of the Department's compliance with contracting practices and policies related to procurement under section 2533aof title 10, United States Code, which pertains to the requirement to buy certain articles from American sources and is frequently referred to as the ''Berry Amendment.'' This section would also require the Inspector General to include the findings of such periodic audits as part of the semiannual report transmitted to congressional committees as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978 ( P.L. 95-452 ). The Senate committee-reported bill contained no similar provision. The agreement contains the provision with a clarifying amendment. See the following excerpt from H.R. 3304 . (a) Requirement for Periodic Audits of Contracting Compliance-The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall conduct periodic audits of contracting practices and policies related to procurement under section 2533a of title 10, United States Code. (b) Requirement for Additional Information in Semiannual Reports-The Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall ensure that findings and other information resulting from audits conducted pursuant to subsection (a) are included in the semiannual report transmitted to congressional committees under section 8(f)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). H.R. 1960 was introduced in the House on May 14, passed the House in a recorded vote (315-108) on June 14, and was referred to the Senate on July 8, 2013. The bill contained several provisions which would, if enacted into law, impact domestic source restrictions. Section 817 would have amended 10 U.S.C. 2533b by requiring the procurement of American flags to come from domestic sources; Section 833 would have required DOD to report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment of the act, on supply chain vulnerabilities during sole source procurement. The report would include a list of the components in the DOD supply chain for which one supplier controls over 50% of the global market, a list of supply chain parts where there is inadequate information to determine whether there is a single source for components, as well as the Secretary of Defense's recommendations on which single source suppliers create vulnerabilities and recommendations on how to reduce them; Section 839would have required DOD to meet domestic sourcing requirements for footwear issued to enlisted members, provided that DOD can certify that there are at least two domestic manufacturers of footwear that can meet the requirements of the Berry Amendment; Section 1601 would have required the DOD Inspector General to conduct periodic audits of contracting practices and policies related to the Berry Amendment. These audits shall be conducted at least once every three years; and H.Rept. 113-102 (which accompanied H.R. 1960 ) contained two "Items of Special Interest" that reflected the Committee's interest and concern over the enforcement of domestic source provisions under the Berry Amendment, as described here. The committee supports maintaining the integrity of section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, commonly referred to as the `Berry Amendment,' which requires 100% U.S. content for certain products sourced for the Armed Forces. The committee is concerned with protecting the supply chain and domestic production base for components and weapon systems that are vital to the Armed Forces. In addition, the practice of sourcing certain products and materials from foreign entities in violation of the Berry Amendment may harm the domestic industrial base, as well as result in U.S. job losses. Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision that would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to periodically review the Department's compliance with established restrictions. Periodic Audits of Contracting Compliance by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense This section would require the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to conduct an audit of the Department's compliance with contracting practices and policies related to procurement under section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, which pertains to the requirement to buy certain articles from American sources and is frequently referred to as the `Berry Amendment.' This section would also require the Inspector General to include the findings of such periodic audits as part of the semiannual report transmitted to congressional committees as required by the Inspector General Act of 1978 ( P.L. 95-452 ). S. 1197 was introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the Armed Services Committee. S.Rept. 113-44 , which accompanied S. 1197 , directed both DOD and the Army to study the status of domestic sourcing for athletic footwear for enlisted members, as discussed here. Therefore, the committee directs U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center to undergo a study, to be completed no later than January 1, 2014, of currently available Berry compliant athletic footwear to ascertain whether the Department's needs could be satisfied for new recruits. The committee believes this study should review the various sizes and fit of athletic shoes required the cost and capacity of products available in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the needs of the Department of Defense (DOD), and whether such footwear could be made. During roughly the last decade, certain procurement incidents and policy changes have created some level of unease with respect to the Berry Amendment's application to not only athletic footwear but also textiles and clothing. As such, the committee directs DOD to submit a publicly releasable report to the congressional defense committees that includes, but not be limited to, any audits or auditing policy, investigations and enforcement, incentives, procurement officer training, and regulatory interpretation guidelines relating to the Department's contracting for textiles and clothing contained in Federal Supply Codes 83 and 84, and athletic footwear listed in Federal Supply Class 8430 and 8435. In light of the public debate raised concerning the announcement that U.S. Olympic uniforms were procured from foreign sources, some questions have been raised concerning DOD's procurement of American flags. CRS contacted officials from the Defense Logistics Agency and asked the following questions. DLA officials provided answers to those specific questions, as provided below. 1. From what sources does DOD procure American flags?