Congress is considering legislation that would strip military personnel of the right to choose what type of shoes they wear during physical training exercises, a move opponents in Congress and at the Pentagon say would be costly and increase the risk of injury.
A provision was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act that would mandate the Department of Defense buy only American-made athletic shoes. If the spending bill is passed, it would be a huge boost to New Balance, the only company that produces an American-made shoe that has been approved by the Pentagon.
The provision is based on the 1941 Berry Amendment, which mandates that the military provide only American-made products to soldiers. Running shoes, however, are not furnished to recruits because the Pentagon does not believe there are enough American-made shoes to satisfy the needs of the military.
Instead, Military recruits are given a cash allowance, ranging from $75 to $92, depending on the branch, to purchase athletic shoes with. The Marine Corps branch, which deems running shoes "personal items," is the exception—Marine recruits are not issued athletic shoes or given money to purchase them, but are free to wear any type they choose. The new rule would extend to all military branches.
It is, however, standard practice for the military to issue cash allowances for the purchase of items that require variety. Female recruits, for example, are given money to purchase bras and underwear as these items come in different variations and come with a degree of personal preference.
Rep. Mark Sanford (R., S.C.), who has proposed an amendment to strip the spending bill of the provision, says that it is a "common sense" issue.
"The Marine Corps has shown a remarkable degree of common sense, by saying that choice of footwear is a personal decision," Sanford told the Washington Free Beacon. "One size doesn't fit all, in life or in the case of a new recruit's footwear as they are entering a recruiting regime."
"There is a reason the military doesn't assign bras or underwear for women because they recognize that an enlisted recruit may want to have personal preference on that personal choice," Sanford said. "The same is true of people's feet, which come in different widths, different sizes."
Great stock is put into making sure that recruits are fitted with the proper shoe due to the Pentagon's assessment that recruit injuries are "single-most significant medical impediment to military readiness." The DOD already spends $100 million annually on recruit musculoskeletal injuries.
In the Army, Drill Sergeants are trained to assess each recruit’s foot type and work with the U.S. Army Medical Command to provide a list of shoes that best match each recruits unique athletic style. Recruits are then given $83.50 to purchase a pair of shoes, an amount of money that is considered part of their basic pay and compensation.
"It is a Department priority to preserve the service member's options in order to ensure that new recruits are able to select from a variety of shoes in order to maximize their opportunity to obtain the most comfortable and appropriate fit," a Pentagon spokesperson said. "Scientific literature indicates that due to the variety of foot shapes, sizes, and requirements more options are better in order to ensure proper fit and comfort."
The Pentagon said that it has worked closely with New Balance for the past three years and that it has thus far manufactured only one type of shoe that has passed the military's wear test.
The Pentagon also said that changing the way recruits obtain shoes would increase costs far beyond the $17 million that is currently spent annually on the cash allowance program.
The annual cost of having one model of shoe—in the three required shoe styles of cushion, stability, and motion control—ready to be distributed to the military's 250,000 recruits is $111 million, according to a Pentagon estimate. If three different models of shoes were made available, the procurement program would cost $333 million.
Supporters of the provision in Congress come from both sides of the aisle but also from states where New Balance has a large presence such as Maine, where its factories are located, and Massachusetts, where it is headquartered. Reps. Bruce Poliquin (R., Maine) and Niki Tsongas (D., Mass.), who authored the provision, have represented it as a measure to protect jobs at New Balance factories in Maine.
For this reason, the Heritage Foundation is painting the provision as "cronyism" on behalf of New Balance.
"If New Balance and its congressional allies believe the company ‘manufacture[s] the highest-quality shoes in the world,’ then it should be willing to compete for the business of America’s sons and daughters," said Heritage Action CEO Michael A. Needham. "Using the legislative process to limit choice and competition is outrageous."
New Balance did not return multiple requests for comment.
Michael Hartigan, a spokesperson for Tsongas, says that the provision is not just in support of New Balance, pointing to the fact that three other companies notified the Pentagon in 2014 that they had the capacity to produce a U.S.-made shoe for the military.
Only New Balance, however, has initiated the process of getting its shoe approved by the Pentagon, a process that takes years. The provision would make New Balance the sole supplier of running shoes for military recruits for years to come.
Sanford has described the bill as a "de facto earmark" for New Balance but declined to criticize those supporting the provision for ignoring common sense in order to aid a local corporation.
"My experience in life is that you give people the benefit of the doubt, so I am not going to malign anybody's intent as to why they might be doing this," said Sanford. "I'll let people draw their own conclusions there."
"I stand by the science behind our amendment, I stand by the common sense component of it, and I stand by the free market thinking of our amendment."