The Arms Export Control Act, as amended, is the primary statute governing exports of U.S. defense articles and services, including advanced weapons and technologies, to eligible countries through the government-to-government Foreign Military Sales program and sales made directly by U.S. companies. The act also includes a statement of conventional arms transfer policy, which provides that sales of defense items be consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. The Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, a Presidential Decision Directive last updated in 1995, provides policy for weapons transfers. In addition to stipulating that transfer decisions be made on a case-by-case basis, the policy has several key goals that must be considered when transferring weapons: Ensure U.S. military forces maintain technological advantage over their adversaries. Help allies and friends deter or defend against aggression, while promoting interoperability with U.S. forces when combined operations are required. Promote stability in regions critical to U.S. interests, while preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their missile delivery systems. Promote peaceful conflict resolution and arms control, human rights, democratization, and other U.S. foreign policy objectives. Enhance the ability of the U.S. defense industrial base to meet U.S. defense requirements and maintain long-term military technological superiority at lower costs. While the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy generally covers all arms transfers, NDP specifically governs the releasability of classified military information, including classified weapons and military technologies. NDP establishes a framework for policy decisions on proposed transfers to foreign recipients and is key in governing the release of an advanced weapon or technology. These decisions are made before weapons or technologies are approved for transfer. As implemented by DOD Directive, this policy specifies that releasability decisions must satisfy five criteria. For example, the proposed transfer must be consistent with U.S. military and security objectives and be protected by the foreign recipient in substantially the same manner as the United States. The DOD Directive also requires department officials to enter NDP case data, including releasability decisions, into a centralized database to facilitate the coordination and review of potential transfers of weapons. In November 2002, the White House announced that it had begun a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of U.S. defense trade policies to identify changes needed to ensure that these policies continue to support U.S. national security and foreign policy goals. It also aims to assess how U.S. technological advantage can be maintained. The assessment is expected to cover such topics as the Arms Export Control Act and the military departments’ technology release policy, as well as a determination of the effectiveness of the Defense Trade Security Initiatives. The assessment is also expected to cover issues related to the NDP process. The process governing the release of advanced weapons and technologies is inherently complex because it involves multiple, multilevel reviews by various U.S. government entities and individuals with varying perspectives. A country’s request for an advanced system initially is sent to the military department that is responsible for—or “owns” the weapon or technology, which then coordinates with various functional units to arrive at a decision on whether to fulfill the request. Depending on the circumstances of the request and the outcome of this initial review, the request may be submitted to an interagency committee and other special committees for additional review. Further, because the reviewers represent different agencies, they bring varying perspectives to the process and must reconcile differences to reach a unanimous decision on each request. Finally, the guidance governing the process is broad and applied on a case-by-case basis, allowing decision makers to use judgment and interpretation when considering each foreign country’s request for the release of an advanced weapon or technology. A foreign government’s request for the transfer of an advanced weapon or technology is directed to the military department that is responsible for the particular weapon or technology. Each military department has its own review process for determining whether the weapon or technology should be released (see fig. 1). To develop a position, the military department receiving the request coordinates with and obtains input from military experts in various offices and divisions within those offices. For example, we were told that the Air Force coordinates a proposed transfer of an Air Force fighter aircraft to a foreign government with subject matter experts in functional offices, such as acquisition, plans, operations, and weapons systems division. These experts, in turn, may consult with other experts within their divisions. For instance, the weapons systems division may coordinate with its electronic warfare staff, its radar staff, or both to obtain input. Military department reviews can result in one of three outcomes: concurrence, concurrence with limitations and conditions, or nonconcurrence. If a consensus to approve a request cannot be reached, the request is elevated within the military department for a final decision. If the requested item (1) is not covered in NDP, (2) exceeds the NDP classification level specified for a particular foreign country, or (3) does not comply with NDP criteria, the military department may seek an exception to NDP from the National Disclosure Policy Committee, an interagency review forum. Timelines for military departments’ reviews of requests can vary. For example, Army officials stated that some cases can be handled quickly while others may require a major investment of time and resources. When NDPC receives a request for an exception, the Executive Secretariat distributes the request to committee members and seeks a unanimous vote within 10 days (see fig. 2). Each committee member coordinates a position with various experts. For example, the Joint Staff sends the request to the Combatant Command that has responsibility for the country requesting the advanced weapon or technology. The Combatant Command, in turn, coordinates the request with various units within the Command, which may include the Scientific Advisor, plans and operations division, weapons systems division, and intelligence division to provide input on such issues as the impact of the transfer on the region. These units may further coordinate with other offices within their units. A final coordinated Command position is then provided to the Joint Staff NDPC member. If any NDPC member votes not to approve a request for an exception, there is a negotiation period for no more than 20 days. During this time, the member that has requested the exception may propose or accept placing different or additional conditions on the request to gain unanimity. If agreement cannot be reached, the request is elevated to the Chairman for a decision. Members have 10 days to appeal the Chairman’s decision or it is accepted. If a committee member appeals the decision, the request is elevated to the Deputy Secretary or Secretary of Defense. However, of the 330 exceptions reviewed over the last 4 years, only 1 had been appealed and 2 denied. The appeal and denials covered requests for weapons and technologies and intelligence information. In addition, 5 requests for exceptions related to weapons and technologies were withdrawn before a decision was reached. According to DOD officials, most exceptions are approved with limitations and conditions. In addition to the military departments’ reviews and the NDPC exception process, special committee processes are set up to review requests for sensitive technologies that may be included in a proposed transfer. For example, if a proposed transfer includes a stealth component, the military department submits the case to the Director of Special Programs within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics who manages low observable/counter low observable (LO/CLO) issues (see fig. 3). Precedent decisions, which are contained in a database, are used to determine the releasability of the technology. Based on the level of sensitivity of the technology involved, the case may be elevated to the Tri-Service Committee for further review. Some controversial or extraordinarily complex cases may require exceptions to precedent LO/CLO policy and further elevation to the LO/CLO Executive Committee for final decision. If needed, the Tri-Service Committee can charter a “Red Team,” which, according to DOD officials, is composed of subject matter experts, including those from industry, academia, and the military department laboratories. The Red Team is convened to assess the risks associated with the proposed transfer. The Tri-Service Committee and the Executive Committee make their decision based on their assessment of the information provided by the military department that is responsible for the technology and the pros and cons presented by the Red Team, if convened. The multilayered reviews involved in the process for determining the releasability of an advanced weapon or technology can be particularly complex because individual entities and decision makers have varying perspectives. For example, the combatant commanders’ position may concentrate on such issues as the effects the proposed transfer could have on coalition warfare, political-military relations in a region, and their plans and operations. The State Department, concerned with U.S. foreign policy goals, tends to focus on issues such as the proposed transfer’s potential effect on the stability of the region of the requesting country. Others may deliberate the benefits and risks of the proposed transfer. In addition, we were told that resource issues, including turnover of officials involved in the releasability process, can affect the reviews. As we previously reported, military personnel rotate, on average, every 2 years. The guidance governing releasability adds further complexity to the review process because it is broad and implemented on a case-by-case basis, allowing for judgment and interpretation of the unique circumstances surrounding each transfer. Specifically, decisions on the release of advanced weapons or technologies must satisfy five broad NDP criteria that are subject to interpretation. (See app. II for a discussion of all five criteria and examples of information to be considered for each.) For example, one criterion decision makers must consider is whether the proposed transfer is consistent with U.S. military and security objectives. In examining this criterion, decision makers must address multiple factors, including how technological advantage would be protected if the weapon or technology were sold or transferred.