In 2007, we identified eight key programs that aim to protect critical technologies: Arms and Dual-Use Export Controls, Anti-Tamper Policy, the Foreign Military Sales Program, the National Disclosure Policy Committee, the Militarily Critical Technologies Program, the National Industrial Security Program, and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Responsibilities for these programs are shared among multiple federal agencies and offices, primarily within the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Treasury. As shown in table 1, multiple agencies either have the lead or are stakeholder agencies for the programs for the identification and protection of critical technologies. In our 2013 high-risk update, we noted that these programs do not work collectively as a system and that the administration had not taken steps to re-examine the portfolio of programs to address their collective effectiveness; any actions to improve programs had largely focused on addressing challenges in individual programs. Although we did not previously divide this list of programs into export control and non- export-control programs, an ongoing presidential initiative known as Export Control Reform has emphasized the relationship between two of the programs on the list: the Arms Export Control System and the Dual- Use Export Control System. These two programs—which we refer to collectively as export control programs—impose licensing requirements on persons that create or trade in specified categories of items and information. The other programs in the portfolio—which we refer to as non-export-control programs—are not part of this system for controlling exports. The cognizant agencies have taken actions in each of the programs designed to protect critical technologies since our January 2007 high-risk update, in response to changes in law, our prior recommendations, or their own internal identification of weaknesses. For instance, initiatives are under way in the area of export controls, which comprises two of the eight programs, based on an April 2010 framework announced by the administration. The six non-export-control programs have undergone changes through internal agency or department initiatives, or through legislative requirements. However, some of these eight programs are facing implementation or additional challenges. In 2009, the administration directed an interagency review of the U.S. export control system that resulted in the establishment of an Export Control Reform initiative a year later. This initiative is under way and actions have been implemented using a phased approach, with three planned phases—Phase I developed plans and made preparations for Phase II, which is the implementation of steps to reconcile various definitions, regulations, and policies for export controls, all while building toward Phase III. This third phase is to result in implementation of major changes supported by these reconciliations, by consolidating export control efforts in four reform areas, to create a single, consolidated control list, a single licensing agency, a primary export enforcement coordination agency, and a unified information technology system. As we concluded in our November 2010 review of the Export Control Reform initiative, this approach has the potential to address weaknesses in the U.S. export control system, including areas where agencies have not addressed prior The reform effort is currently in Phase II, and changes are GAO findings.occurring in each of the four reform areas, to varying degrees. Challenges are also present in each, such as achieving full implementation of the Federal Export Enforcement Coordination Center, designed to coordinate enforcement efforts across all export agencies. Further, delays exist in agencies’ use of DOD’s USXPORTS system as the unified information technology system for licensing. Moreover, full implementation of Export Control Reform in Phase III is dependent upon congressional action to revise legislation, particularly in licensing and enforcement activities. In order to regulate the export of items and information with military applications, State and Commerce each maintain a separate control list of items that require a license before they can be exported—the U.S. Munitions List, for State, and the Commerce Control List, for Commerce. Because State and Commerce have different restrictions on the items they control, determining which agency controls exported items is fundamental to the effectiveness of the U.S. export control system. Over 10 years ago, we found that both departments had claimed jurisdiction over the same items, such as certain missile-related technologies, and the administration noted that these types of jurisdictional issues were still present in 2010, when they began Export Control Reform. Such jurisdictional disagreements and problems in the past have often resulted from the departments’ differing interpretations of the regulations and from minimal or ineffective coordination among the departments. As part of the reform initiative, a task force created new export control criteria to determine which items and technologies should be controlled by Commerce and which by State, thus helping to reduce uncertainty. In implementing this process, Commerce, State, and Defense officials involved in the reform initiative are working to reach agreement on the appropriate controls over items in the 21 categories of State’s U.S. Munitions List and the corresponding controls for items Commerce, State, and Defense officials determine should be moved to the Commerce Control List. Since the first set of revised rules went into effect in 2013, 15 of the 21 categories of the U.S. Munitions List have been reviewed and final rules have been issued to clearly identify the jurisdiction of controlled items. These revisions are intended to move certain less sensitive items from State’s U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List, while leaving high-risk and high-priority items and information on State’s list. The moved items are subject to Commerce’s more flexible Export Administration Regulations. The aim of these revisions is to enhance national security by increasing interoperability with allies, maintaining the U.S. defense industrial base, and enabling the U.S. export control agencies to focus on items and destinations of greater concern. For example, military aircraft instrument flight trainers not specially designed to simulate combat have been transitioned from the U.S. Munitions List to the Commerce Control List. An additional three categories of the U.S. Munitions List, pertaining to arms and ammunition, are on hold because they relate to the politically sensitive issue of gun control policy, according to senior level export administration officials at both State and Commerce. The final three categories are still under review. Current efforts have focused on transitioning less sensitive items from the U.S. Munitions List to a new section of the Commerce Control List called the 600 Series, which was added in order to provide a separate classification for munitions newly under Commerce’s jurisdiction. According to Commerce’s Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, the completion of all of these revisions is expected by late 2015. As a result of the control list revision process, however, licensing staff and industry are contending with three general types of controls—the U.S. Munitions List, the 600 Series controls on the Commerce Control List, and the dual-use controls on the Commerce Control List. This is intended as an intermediary step on the path to a single list, but an official from State’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls noted that, for now, some exporters are confused by the multiple lists. This confusion among exporters, although typically expected when there are various lists, could delay or impair achievement of the Export Control Reform’s goal of overcoming the inefficiencies of the previous export control system until the final integration to a single list is completed. These changes to the lists are also affecting export control enforcement actions that rely on processing of commodity jurisdictions—which determine whether an item is controlled by State or Commerce—by the Department of State, according to enforcement agency officials. Two officials from the Department of Justice, as well as the Deputy Assistant Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Homeland Security Investigations Counter-Proliferation Investigations Program, told us that it is taking longer for State to issue decisions, including commodity jurisdiction determinations, because of the recent changes to the control lists. They stated that the changing jurisdiction of items is resulting in a greater need for investigators to obtain timely commodity jurisdictions than in the past. Consequently, these officials noted that, given the time it is taking to complete the commodity jurisdiction decision—upwards of 6 months in some cases, which is well beyond State’s goal of 60 days—it is difficult for law enforcement to build a case and receive timely information to take specific enforcement actions, such as authorization to execute a search warrant or to obtain criminal indictments. The Deputy Assistant Director of DHS’s Homeland Security Investigations Counter-Proliferation Investigations Program also noted that commodity jurisdictions often involve review by other agencies, such as DOD technical experts in addition to the licensing agencies of State and Commerce, and that this involvement, in addition to the limited staff at the State Department available to conduct commodity jurisdictions for law enforcement agencies, may be contributing to the length of time taken. Compliance officials at State indicated that they try to prioritize commodity jurisdiction requests from law enforcement, but increases in the frequency of these requests and duplication of requests has made it difficult for them to keep up with law enforcement needs. According to the Department of Justice officials, the length of time it takes to receive the certification necessary from the State Department to proceed with their enforcement actions, such as search warrants, results in cases losing momentum. These delays also contribute to increased difficulty in keeping witnesses interested and available if and when the case goes to trial. In addition, the Deputy Assistant Director of DHS’s Homeland Security Investigations Counter-Proliferation Investigations Program told us that DHS is experiencing the same challenge in conducting enforcement activities. Officials with both Homeland Security Investigations and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys stated that these delays are having an adverse effect on numerous cases and investigations. DHS documents show that the number of requests for support by State that would include a commodity jurisdiction have doubled since 2008, reaching more than 250 requests in 2014. Further, two officials from the Department of Justice told us that in this transitional period, the revisions to the control list are creating some degree of confusion and it is becoming more subjective to prosecute cases.