Mass Mail Campaign 1: Comment Submitted by Trey Hodges, Swift Spinning Inc., Total as of 9/14/09 (3)

Date: September 14, 2009 Mr. Jeremy Olson Office of the Chief Procurement Officer Acquisition Policy and Legislation Branch U.S. Department of Homeland Security 245 Murray Drive, Building 410 (RDS) Washington, DC 20528 RE: HSAR Case 2009-004, Docket No. DHS-2009-0081 Dear Office of the Chief Procurement Officer: Swift Spinning Inc is submitting this statement in response to a request for comments on revisions to the Department of Homeland Security Homeland Security (DHS) Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) in the Federal Register on August 17, 2009. The proposed changes would affect HSAR parts 3025 and 3052 to reflect a statutory change limiting the acquisition of products containing textiles from sources outside the United States. Swift Spinning Inc is strongly supportive of the Kissell Amendment included in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-16) signed into law in February. The U.S. government purchases large quantities of textiles and apparel items for its use each year, and we firmly believe that taxpayer funded expenditures should accrue to the taxpayers. Swift Spinning Inc has several concerns with regard to the Interim Rule: DHS has adopted a restrictive definition of items “directly related to national security”; the Interim Rule contains language that identifies Mexico, Canada, and Chile unnecessarily; and the Interim Rule’s de minimis exception in Sec. 604(d) should be interpreted as Post-Procurement Authority. In Swift Spinning Inc’s opinion, the DHS has adopted an unnecessarily restrictive definition of items “directly related to national security interests” for purposes of applying the Kissell Amendment. Furthermore, it appears that the Interim Rule intends to unnecessarily exclude certain textile products from procurement under Kissell. The Kissell Amendment was intended to be an extension of the Berry Amendment to DHS. By creating a new definition for purposes of applying this amendment, DHS is undermining the intent of Congress and creating unnecessary complications in the procurement process. The current rules governing the Berry Amendment apply to all goods at the Department of Defense except for certain limited instances. With that spirit in mind we believe that the final rule should not deviate in any manner from the original intent of Congress. The Interim Rule specifically identifies FTA partners Mexico, Canada, and Chile as eligible to seek procurement benefits from the Kissell Amendment. Swift Spinning Inc objects to specific mention of the three FTA partners being mentioned by name. After the enactment of the Kissell Amendment it was learned that the U.S. Trade Representative did not properly notify FTA partners Mexico, Canada, and Chile that DHS agencies could fall under stricter procurement rules for national security purposes. Under the rules of the FTAs and international procurement agreements, proper notification is required. We object to the specific mention in the Interim Rule of these countries by name. In the event that the USTR is able to establish an agreement with these three countries, the DHS will have to issue new regulations, complete with a public comment period in order to properly remove the countries from the rule. This will cause further delay and negatively impact our ability to seek the full benefit of Kissell. Finally, the Interim Rule’s de minimis exception in Sec. 604(d) should be interpreted as Post-Procurement Authority. The manner in which this section was developed suggests that the Secretary has latitude to override Sec. 604’s fiber sourcing requirement when non-compliant fibers have been incorporated in an otherwise compliant, completed procurement. Congress is silent on this issue and we believe it provides the Secretary of Homeland Security the option to accept delivery of an item produced with fiber out of compliance with the Act’s U.S. domestic procurement mandate, in instances where the non-compliant fiber in question does not exceed 10% of the value of the delivered product. The Kissell Amendment was enacted to benefit U.S. manufacturers, particularly the textile industry. It is incumbent upon the DHS in drafting final rules that implement the Amendment to ensure that U.S. producers of textile components and products have the ability to compete and seek full procurement advantages as intended by the statute. Sincerely, Trey Hodges President and CEO Swift Spinning Inc