Used only sparingly in past military operations, UAVs are now making national headlines as they are used in ways normally reserved for manned aircraft. UAVs come in a variety of sizes and configurations, ranging from as small as an insect to as large as a small commercial airliner. In our work, we focused on mini, tactical, and strategic UAVs. According to available analysis, mini and tactical UAVs constituted the vast majority of the UAV systems in operation from 2005 to 2011, while strategic UAVs included some of the most versatile UAVs, typically capable of operating up to 30,000 to 45,000 feet in altitude with a maximum endurance of more than 20 hours. Figure 1 briefly describes these three types of UAVs. The two principal multilateral regimes that address exports of UAVs are the MTCR and Wassenaar. MTCR, established in 1987, is a voluntary association of 34 countries that share the goal of limiting the spread of ballistic and cruise missiles and UAVs capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. Wassenaar, established in 1996, is a voluntary association of 41 countries that share the goal of limiting the spread of certain conventional weapons and sensitive dual-use items having both civilian and military applications. Both are consensus-based, requiring that all members must agree to any proposed changes in regime documents or activities. In both instances, members agree to restrict exports of sensitive technologies by placing them on commonly agreed to lists and incorporating these lists into their national export control laws and regulations. Members also conduct activities in support of the regimes, such as sharing information about denied license applications and conducting outreach to countries that are not members of the regimes. Wassenaar has two control lists: a munitions list and a dual-use list. The MTCR members control a common list of items, which is contained in the MTCR Annex. The Annex covers complete missile systems, including rocket systems and UAVs, as well as a broad range of equipment, software, and technology. The MTCR Annex consists of two categories of items: Category I and Category II. Under MTCR, complete UAV systems can be controlled as either a Category I or a Category II system, depending on their range and payload capacity. Category I UAVs are considered the most sensitive, and include strategic UAVs capable of delivering a payload of at least 500 kilograms (about 1,100 pounds) to a range of at least 300 kilometers (approximately 186 miles). MTCR member nations considering the export of these UAVs commit to apply a “strong presumption of denial” standard regardless of purpose, meaning that such transfers should occur only on rare occasions and only in instances that are well justified under the MTCR Guidelines. Category II UAVs are considered less sensitive, consisting primarily of UAVs that do not meet Category I criteria, but are capable of flying at least 300 kilometers. While these items require review through national export control systems, these items are not subject to the MTCR “strong presumption of denial,” except for exports judged by the exporting country to be intended for use in delivering weapons of mass destruction. MTCR members have agreed to a “no undercut” policy for all MTCR- controlled items, meaning that MTCR members have agreed to consult with each other before considering exporting an item on the list that has been notified as denied by another member pursuant to the MTCR Guidelines. Several U.S. laws authorize the sale or transfer of export controlled technologies from U.S. companies or the U.S. government to foreign countries, or in certain cases foreign entities. The Arms Export Control Act of 1976, as amended, provides the President the authority to control the sale or transfer of defense articles and services. Under the Arms Export Control Act, State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) licenses direct commercial sale (DCS) exports of defense articles and services on the U.S. Munitions List, while DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) administers the FMS program under the supervision and general direction of State. In addition, the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, also requires end-use monitoring for the sale or export of defense articles and services, and delegates these responsibilities to the same agencies that administer the program. DDTC administers the Blue Lantern program to conduct end-use monitoring for defense articles exported under DCS, while DSCA administers the Golden Sentry program to monitor the end-use of defense articles transferred through FMS. 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2401-2420. The Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, is not permanent legislation. Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act has been in lapse. However, the President has continued the regulations in effect through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 C.F.R., 2001 Comp 783 (2002)), which most recently was extended by Presidential Notice on August 12, 2011, under the authority provided by section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1622(d)). administers Commerce’s end-use monitoring program for technologies covered by the Commerce Control List. The U.S. export control enforcement system consists of multiple agencies. Within DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigates suspected export control violations involving both U.S. Munitions List and Commerce Control List items. In addition, DHS’ Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspects selected exports to determine whether proper licenses were obtained prior to shipment and may interdict suspicious items being shipped. Within Commerce, BIS’ Office of Export Enforcement has authority to investigate violations involving Commerce Control List items. Within DOJ, the FBI can take the lead in certain export control investigations involving counterintelligence and counterterrorism. DOJ prosecutes suspected export control violations. Investigations can result in criminal prosecutions; fines; and imprisonment or administrative penalties, such as export denial orders barring a party from exporting any U.S. items for a specific period of time. Figure 2 shows the principal agencies that have a role in the export control process. There are also U.S. government agencies that gather and analyze information on the proliferation of UAV systems and related technologies and produce UAV-related threat assessments and other UAV-related information. The Director of National Intelligence serves as the head of the intelligence community, establishing objectives and priorities for collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence. Moreover, the Defense Security Service (DSS) provides threat assessments in support of its mission to oversee the protection of U.S. classified information and data in the hands of cleared DOD contractors. The executive branch is currently considering reforms to the U.S. export control system in an Export Control Reform Initiative, including the creation of a single control list and a single information technology system. This initiative could affect export control licensing and enforcement efforts involving UAVs and related technologies and components. There has been rapid growth globally in UAV acquisition, development, and military applications. From 2005 to 2011, nations, including countries of proliferation concern and key allies, sought to improve their intelligence gathering and military aviation capabilities by developing and fielding their own UAV systems. Furthermore, militaries across the globe sought to expand the uses for UAVs, particularly in the area of armed strike missions. UAVs are also increasingly used in a number of civil and commercial applications, such as law enforcement, but national and international regulations place restrictions on most of these applications. Our analysis of open source information shows a significant increase in the number of countries that acquired a UAV system since 2005. In 2004, we reported that approximately 41 countries had acquired a UAV.review of current U.S. export licensing data and open source materials found that this number grew over the intervening period to at least 76 countries. Figure 3 provides a global picture of the countries that have acquired UAVs. The United States likely faces increasing risks as additional countries of concern and terrorist organizations acquire UAV technology. UAVs can provide countries and terrorists organizations with increased abilities to gather intelligence on and conduct attacks against U.S. interests. Alternatively, selected transfers of U.S. UAV technology support U.S. objectives by increasing allies’ capabilities and by strengthening the industrial base for UAV production in the United States. Available analysis has determined that foreign countries’ acquisition of UAVs can pose a threat because it puts U.S. military assets at increased risk of intelligence collection and attack. We were told that the significant growth in the number of countries that have acquired UAVs, including key countries of concern, has increased the threat to the United States. Because some types of UAVs are relatively inexpensive and have short development cycles, they offer even less wealthy countries a cost- effective way of obtaining new or improved military capabilities that can pose risks to the United States and its allies. We were informed that currently, the potential threat to the United States primarily involves tactical UAVs, rather than more sophisticated, strategic systems. However, according to available analysis, countries of concern are pursuing more advanced UAVs through acquisitions from foreign suppliers and indigenous development. Such UAVs would be capable of flying higher, longer, and further and would be capable of a wider range of missions. According to a publicly released DSS report, many countries of concern seek to illegally obtain U.S. UAV technology as part of their strategy to advance their UAV capabilities. DSS reported in 2009 that foreign targeting of U.S. UAV technology through both overt and covert collection efforts had increased dramatically in recent years. According to DSS, the United States’ acknowledged status as a global leader in UAV development makes the U.S. defense industry a primary focus of foreign collection attempts. The targeted technologies included engines, optics sensors, communications gear, and guidance and navigation systems.