<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:40515.wais]
STATUS OF VISAS AND OTHER
POLICIES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS
AND SCHOLARS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-74
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-515 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California JO BONNER, Alabama
LAURA RICHARDSON, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
February 7, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Written Statement............................................ 14
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Witnesses:
Mr. Stephen A. ``Tony'' Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for Visa Service, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. State
Department
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 24
Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, The
National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 25
Biography.................................................... 33
Dr. Allan E. Goodman, President and CEO, Institute of
International Education, New York, NY
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
Biography.................................................... 55
Ms. Catheryn Cotten, Director, International Office, Duke
University
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 58
Discussion....................................................... 67
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of NAFSA: Association of International Educators,
February 7, 2008............................................... 82
STATUS OF VISAS AND OTHER POLICIES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Status of Visas and Other
Policies for Foreign Students
and Scholars
thursday, february 7, 2008
2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Thursday, February 7, the Subcommittee on Research and Science
Education will hold a hearing to review the status of visas and other
policies governing the entry into the U.S. of foreign students and
scholars and to examine any ongoing impediments to smooth
implementation of the policies as well as the impact that such
impediments may be having on the U.S. scientific enterprise. In
addition, the Subcommittee will explore recommendations for changes or
improvements to existing policy.
2. Witnesses
Mr. Stephen A. ``Tony'' Edson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa
Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, The National
Academies.
Dr. Allan E. Goodman, President and CEO, Institute of International
Education.
Ms. Catheryn Cotten, Director, International Office, Duke University.
3. Overarching Questions
<bullet> What is the current status of visas for foreign
students? What difficulties remain for universities trying to
recruit top science and engineering students from abroad? To
what extent did significant backlogs in visa processing and the
perception that the U.S. was unwelcoming to foreign students in
the early years after 9/11 cause long-term harm to the ability
of U.S. universities to attract top foreign students? Are there
data on what is happening to foreign students who are accepted
to U.S. universities but choose not to enroll? Are there
differences across countries and regions?
<bullet> What is the current status of visas for foreign
scholars? What difficulties do universities and faculty have in
recruiting foreign science and engineering scholars for short-
term appointments or research collaborations? What difficulties
do scientific and professional societies have in planning
technical meetings that include foreign scholars? What is the
impact on U.S. universities and the scientific enterprise more
broadly?
<bullet> Are current policies governing the flow of science
and engineering students and scholars across our border
considered to be adequate and are they being implemented
smoothly? If not, what changes are being proposed by the
stakeholders? How responsive has the Federal Government been to
changes and improvements proposed by the higher education and
scientific communities?
4. Background
Visa Policy and Process
The United States has explicitly allowed foreign students to study
in U.S. institutions on temporary visas since the Immigration Act of
1924. The U.S. has also long been a magnate for foreign-born scientists
and engineers, and many of the greatest U.S. scientific achievements
have depended on them. But even before September 11, 2001, in
particular after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, concerns were
raised about certain foreign students in the U.S. as well as the
courses they studied and the research they conducted. As a result,
students and scholars from certain countries or those wishing to study
sensitive technologies were required to go through additional security
clearances.
To assist consular officers in determining who should be subject to
this enhanced review,\1\ the State Department maintains a Technology
Alert List (TAL), which establishes a list of major fields of
technology transfer concern, such as chemical engineering and lasers,
as well as a list of designated state sponsors of terrorism. Following
the September 11th terrorist attacks, the State Department increased
the number of subjects included in the TAL list significantly and added
such sub-areas as community development, geography and urban planning.
As a result, consular officers are requesting security clearances for
more foreign scientists and students whose research or education falls
into one of the TAL categories. The extra security review triggered by
TAL is known as the Visa Mantis review, and requires the application to
be forwarded to State Department headquarters in Washington, DC, for a
security advisory opinion. The Office of Consular Affairs forwards the
application to the FBI, the Nonproliferation Bureau and other agencies
to conduct investigations before preparing the security advisory
opinion and replying to the consular officer. The visa is approved or
denied based on this opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Before proceeding to further review, those applying for a J or
F visa (the two most common categories for students and visiting
scholars) must first demonstrate ``non-immigrant intent'' to the
consular officer in one's home country. In other words, the applicant
must convince the consular officer that he/she has every intention of
returning home after completion of studies. This requirement is
codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Proposals pending in
the 110th Congress would do away with this requirement, at least for a
newly created category of F visa for STEM students (see H.R. 1645 and
S. 1639, or CRS report RL31146 for an overview). Applicants are also
screened up front for ineligibility based on criminal history or for
certain health conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming the visa is approved by State, a foreign student is still
processed by three more agencies under the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). First, the student is inspected at the border by the
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The student's arrival is reported
to the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) for entry in to the
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). After entry,
the student's academic institution is responsible for reporting
information to the SEVIS database. The SEVIS information is then shared
with State, CBP, and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS). The latter agency is responsible for adjudicating any
adjustments in visa status the foreign students wishes to make.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ One of the provisions in the pending legislation mentioned in
the previous footnote would allow students to extend from 12 to 24
months the so-called Optional Practical Training (OPT) period, which
gives them a grace period after graduation to seek sponsorship for and
secure an H1-B visa, often while interning for the potential employer.
However, a group of 19 Senators recently wrote to Secretary Chertoff
claiming that DHS already has the authority to extend the OPT period
without legislation: http://www.nafsa.org/<INF>-</INF>/Document/
<INF>-</INF>/
proposal<INF>-</INF>to<INF>-</INF>extend<INF>-</INF>opt.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Students and Scholars in the U.S. Academic S&E Enterprise\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ All data in this section from either the Institute of
International Education ``Open Doors'' 2007 report: http://
opendoors.iienetwork.org/ or NSF's 2008 Science and Engineering
Indicators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall numbers of foreign students enrolled in U.S.
institutions at all levels increased steadily during the four decades
prior to the September 11th attacks, from 50,000 (or 1.4 percent of our
total student population) in 1959/60 to more than 586,000 (or 4.6
percent of our total student population) in 2002/03, just before
creation of DHS. Congress put DHS, rather than the State Department in
charge of establishing visa policy and reviewing its implementation.
The resulting changes to policy and implementation, including the
increased numbers of applicants subject to Mantis review, significantly
slowed the visa process and made it more cumbersome for most students
and scholars. Enrollment dropped to a low of 564,000 (or 3.9 percent of
the total student population) in the 2005/06 academic year. The latest
data show a rebound, with an enrollment of nearly 583,000 foreign
students during 2006/07 academic year.\4\ Of those, 40.5 percent were
enrolled in engineering, physical and life sciences, social sciences or
math and computer sciences (in that order).\5\ The top three countries
represented were India, China (PRC) and South Korea, accounting for
36.7 percent of the total.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For full timeline from 1959 to 2006, see http://
opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113122
\5\ Business and Management ranked first in top fields of study for
foreign students, at 18 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly half of all foreign students are enrolled in graduate degree
programs, and more than half of those enrolled in graduate programs are
in S&E fields. In fact, foreign graduate student enrollment accounted
for 25 percent of all U.S. S&E graduate students in 2005. The
concentration of foreign enrollment was highest in engineering (45
percent), computer sciences (43 percent), physical sciences (40
percent) and mathematics (37 percent). High-tech employers are
complaining that they can't find enough qualified U.S. citizens or
permanent residents to fill certain high-skills jobs, and that the
resulting demand for H1-B visas for foreign students educated in the
U.S. far outstrips supply. The Science and Technology Committee,
primarily through last year's COMPETES Act, has taken a lead in trying
to increase the pipeline of U.S. students in S&E fields, but for the
foreseeable future foreign students will continue to be represented in
very high numbers.
Similar trends are seen among S&E faculty. In 2003, 15.6 percent of
all full-time S&E faculty were foreign-born citizens and an additional
12.7 percent were non-citizens. Within research universities, 16.4
percent of S&E faculty were naturalized citizens and an additional 16.4
percent were non-citizens. As with students, foreign-born faculty are
represented in even higher numbers in the physical sciences,
mathematics, computer sciences, and engineering.
The higher education and research communities, foreign policy
leaders and business leaders argue that educational and research
exchanges actually enhance rather than threaten U.S. national security
for the following reasons:
<bullet> Foreign students and scholars, especially those that
remain in the U.S. beyond their initial studies or appointment,
help fill the science and engineering talent pool that fuels
innovation and keeps U.S. companies competitive.
<bullet> Foreign students help enrich the educational
experience of their peers while foreign scholars bring
different perspectives to their disciplines and to their
American colleagues, often initiating new research directions
that may lead to scientific or technological breakthroughs.
<bullet> Opening our doors to students and scholars who then
return to their home countries helps the U.S. make friends
around the world, and thus is an important tool in public
diplomacy and foreign policy.
<bullet> International students and their dependents, because
they are largely in the U.S. at their own expense, bring
billions of dollars to their universities and surrounding
communities.
Recommendations for improvements from the stakeholders
A joint State/DHS advisory panel just released a report that, while
not addressing S&E exchange specifically, essentially makes the same
argument about the benefits of open borders.\6\ In the report the panel
offers concrete recommendations to DHS and State for ways to improve
the flow of foreigners across our border. They took a big picture view
of the entire system, and their recommendations regarding visa policy
and processing focus heavily on management practices and coordination
between agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Secure Borders and Open Doors: Preserving Our Welcome to the
World in an Age of Terrorism, Report of the Secure Border and Open
Doors Advisory Committee, January 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The higher education and scientific communities (including the
three non-governmental organizations represented on today's panel)
issued a much narrower set of recommendations in May 2005 regarding
policies for students and scholars.\7\ Those recommendations addressed
the duration of Visa Mantis security clearances, visa renewal policies,
visa reciprocity agreements, the ``non-immigrant intent'' requirement
for students, the absence of a national strategy to encourage academic
and scientific exchange, and the restrictions on access to specialized
scientific equipment for certain foreign nationals doing unclassified
research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.aau.edu/homeland/05VisaStatement.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Science Committee last held a hearing on this topic in February
2004, when there were plenty of horror stories to go around and the
overall numbers were still dropping. All of the stakeholders agree that
the situation for students has improved greatly since then, with the
numbers having rebounded to pre-9/11 levels. But concerns remain. Due
to the lasting perception of a closed border and a cumbersome process,
many top foreign students and scholars are simply turning to other
countries from the start. Some countries in particular started
recruiting heavily as the U.S. closed its borders after September 11th.
There are questions, therefore, about the overall quality of foreign
students entering the U.S. today, even though the quantity is back up.
In addition, scientific societies talk of having to move their
conferences off-shore because too many visas for international scholars
to attend conferences in the U.S. are still denied or delayed beyond
the date of the conference. This leads to lost income for U.S.
conference venues and surrounding communities. Perhaps more
importantly, due to the increased cost of travel, it significantly
reduces opportunities for U.S. graduate students in particular to
attend these meetings at which they exchange research ideas with their
peers and network for future career opportunities.
5. Questions for Witnesses
Mr. Edson
<bullet> How does the State Department balance potential
security threats posed by visiting students and scholars with
the benefits to the U.S. of welcoming foreign scholars to
participate in the U.S. scientific enterprise? What steps has
the State Department taken in the last few years to smoothly
implement the resulting policy?
<bullet> What type of data do you collect on the number and
the resolution of visa applications? To what extent has the
frequency of visa problems, including delays and denials, for
foreign students and scholars improved in the last few years?
What policies or practices contributed to this change? How do
you prioritize applications when backlogs occur?
<bullet> What type of data do you collect on applications that
have triggered a Visa Mantis review based on the applicant's
area of study or research? What guidance and training do you
provide to consular staff so that they know they are applying
the Mantis checks appropriately?
<bullet> What is the status of the Internet-based visa
application system under development? What other changes to
visa policies or implementation strategies are being developed
or considered at this time?
Dr. Fineberg
<bullet> What are the benefits to the U.S. scientific
enterprise and to the U.S. more broadly of welcoming foreign
students and scholars?
<bullet> How have post-9/11 changes to policies that affect
the flow of foreign students and scholars across our borders
affected the U.S. scientific enterprise? To what extent has the
Visa Mantis process and implementation of other federal
policies restricting the flow of students and/or scholars
improved in the last few years? Are the accumulated impacts
from the first few years likely to be permanent or may they be
reversed if the system continues to improve?
<bullet> Does the National Academies have recommendations for
changes or improvements to current policies that would further
improve the flow of students and/or scholars without
compromising national security? How responsive has the Federal
Government been in recent years to the concerns and
recommendations of the National Academies and other
representatives of the scientific community regarding these and
similar recommendations?
Dr. Goodman
<bullet> What are the benefits to the U.S. scientific
enterprise and to the U.S. more broadly of welcoming foreign
students and scholars?
<bullet> Please describe the role of the Institute of
International Education in promoting the exchange of students
and scholars across our borders. How do you work with the
university community and with the Federal Government in
carrying out your mission?
<bullet> To what extent has the Visa Mantis process and
implementation of other federal policies restricting the flow
of students and scholars improved in the last few years? Does
your organization have recommendations for changes or
improvements to current policies that would further improve the
flow of students and/or scholars without compromising national
security? Have you made these recommendations directly to the
relevant federal agencies, and if so, how have they been
received?
Ms. Cotten
<bullet> How do foreign students and scholars contribute to
the science and engineering enterprise at your university?
<bullet> How have visa delays or denials affected the ability
of your university to recruit and retain top science and
engineering students from abroad? How have they affected your
ability to attract scholars for short-term appointments and
research collaborations? To what extent has this process
improved in the last few years? What difficulties remain? Did
the significant problems for foreign students and scholars in
the early years after 9/11 lead to long-term consequences for
your university?
<bullet> Do you have recommendations for changes or
improvements to current policies that would further improve the
flow of students and scholars without compromising national
security? How do you communicate your concerns and
recommendations to the relevant federal agencies and how
responsive are the agencies?
Chairman Baird. I want to welcome all our guests and
visitors here. I am excited about this hearing. I think that I
have had the chance to read the testimony last night, spoke
with our witnesses a moment ago. We actually do read your
testimony, and in this case it was quite rewarding. I can't say
that for all the testimony received, but this was most
informative, very thoughtful, and very well prepared, and we
are grateful for the time you put into it and the expertise you
bring to the hearing and to your comments today.
This is, as I have mentioned to you, is a friendly hearing
and a friendly committee. We pride ourselves on bipartisanship.
My Ranking Member, Vern Ehlers, will be here in just a moment,
and so it is really, we look at this as an opportunity to learn
from you what is being done that works well, what are problems,
and what we can do better.
The issues before us today are dealing with the status of
visas and other policies for foreign students and scholars. Our
subcommittee is going to focus on the role that the Federal
Government can play in fostering international scientific
cooperation and science diplomacy.
As a scientist myself and as somebody who has been
fortunate enough to travel a good bit, I think this is a
critical element of our economic and, in fact, our defense
security. Making sure that people interact in a constructive
way worldwide around issues of scientific and scholarly
exchange is one of the best things we can do to foster
understanding and prosperity around the world.
I have come to believe that although we are not looked upon
as highly as we once were in many respects, countries around
the world still respect our leadership in science and
technology, and they admire our openness to that, and the more
we can embody that the better. One of the ways we do this is by
fostering collaborative research between scientists here
domestically and foreign scientists. However, it can also be
done by bringing foreign scientists to our country to study.
And many scientists and engineers who enter the U.S. on student
and scholarly visas return home and rise to prominent positions
in their own countries and then serve as important advocates
for our country. At the same time as some of the testimony we
are likely to hear shortly conveys, many of, ``our own'' Nobel
Prize winners have come from foreign countries, and many of the
outstanding teachers and contributors to our economic
development are originally of foreign origin. And we need to
actually, I think, publicize that a great deal.
While all of us on this committee, particularly Chairman
Gordon and Dr. Ehlers are committed to increasing the pipeline
of U.S. students in science and engineering fields, we also
recognize that this does not necessarily mean that we should
turn away the best and brightest from other countries. Foreign
students help broaden and enrich the educational experience of
their peers. Foreign scholars bring different perspectives to
their disciplines and to their American colleagues, often
initiating new research directions that may lead to scientific
or technological breakthroughs.
Today we are going to look at the Federal Government's
policies relating to foreign students and scholars at our
education and research institutions, and it has been about four
years since this committee last examined this. Happily from the
testimony we will hear there has been progress in that interim,
and that was, of course, a fairly difficult time for this
country to say the least. And so the progress is gratifying but
also we will hear today constructive suggestions for
improvement.
The hearing will serve as the first in a series of hearings
on scientific diplomacy. Just for the notification of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on March 12 Ambassador
Tom Pickering and other distinguished leaders of the foreign
policy and scientific communities will be providing an informal
briefing, not in a formal hearing setting, but an informal
briefing on the history of U.S. efforts in scientific
diplomacy; what has been done, what is being done. Dr. Goodman
has provided some very helpful comments in his testimony as
well as Dr. Fineberg and Dr. Cotten on this.
On April 2 current administration officials will
participate in a hearing on current efforts within the U.S.
Government on this area and opportunities for the future, and
later in the year we will have a hearing with scientific
organizations, private foundations, and representatives from
foreign entities who are also involved in these efforts. So
this is sort of the kickoff to one of the main, predominant
themes of this committee for this calendar year.
Our universities and high-tech industries, as well as some
of our prominent foreign policy leaders have long recognized
the value of scientific exchange, but it will take a sustained
effort by all stakeholders to make scientific diplomacy a
cornerstone of our foreign policy.
I look forward to our subcommittee being part of that
effort. In this regard, I recently had the privilege of flying
a lead-in delegation of Members of this committee down to
Antarctica. One of the, there is a lot of flight time, I can
tell you, when you fly to Antarctica. Sixty-five hours in the
air and one of the DVDs that I took was a story of Senator
Fulbright's life, the importance, just the extraordinary
achievements of his contribution to this country, not only the
Fulbright Scholarship but many other ways. But that signature
issue named after him has been of such benefit to not only the
United States but to the world, and I want to make sure we keep
that kind of spirit alive and that this committee continues
this.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good afternoon. Welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on the Status of Visas and Other Policies for
Foreign Students and Scholars.
This year, the Subcommittee is going to focus on the role that the
Federal Government can play in fostering international scientific
cooperation and science diplomacy. I have spent a great deal of time
traveling around the world and have come to learn the potential that
science holds for building and strengthening our relationship with
other countries. I have come to believe very strongly that, although
the United States is not looked upon as highly as it once was in many
respects, countries throughout the world still respect and admire us
for science and technology. We should build on this; we should use our
standing in this area to develop relationships and build bridges with
other countries.
Much of this can be done by fostering collaborative research
between our scientists and foreign scientists. However, it can also be
done by bringing foreign scientists to our country to study. Many
scientists and engineers entering the U.S. on student and scholar visas
return home and rise to prominent positions in their own countries and
can serve as important advocates for the United States.
In addition to improving our standing and reputation in the world,
foreign students and scholars play an important role in our
universities' science and engineering departments. They help fill the
talent pools that fuel innovation and keep the U.S. competitive. While
all of us on this committee, particularly Chairman Gordon and Dr.
Ehlers, are committed to increasing the pipeline of U.S. students in
science and engineering fields, we also recognize that this does not
necessarily mean that we should turn away the best and brightest from
other countries.
Foreign students also help broaden and enrich the educational
experience of their peers. Foreign scholars bring different
perspectives to their disciplines and to their American colleagues,
often initiating new research directions that may lead to scientific or
technological breakthroughs.
So, today, we are going to look at the Federal Government's
policies relating to foreign students and scholars at our educational
and research institutions. It's been nearly four years since this
committee last examined the Federal Government's policies in this area.
All of us on this committee recognize that the Federal Government
must protect the American people from those who seek to do us harm.
However, it is important that we review how the barriers we have
created since 9/11 are impacting legitimate students and scholars who
want to come to this country to study and scholars who want to come
here for research collaborations or conferences. We must also examine
what we are doing, or should be doing, to reduce those barriers. I am
particularly concerned about the lasting perception that the U.S. is
not welcoming to foreign visitors and welcome your input as to how we
might also address that.
This hearing will serve as the first in a series of hearings on
science diplomacy. We are currently working to bring in such
distinguished experts as Thomas Pickering and Norm Neureiter for an
informal discussion on international scientific collaboration with
Committee Members. We will follow that with hearings with senior
government officials, scientific organizations and private foundations
involved in these efforts. Our universities and high-tech industries,
as well as some of our prominent foreign policy leaders, have long
recognized the value of scientific exchange. But it will take a
sustained effort by all stakeholders to make science diplomacy a
cornerstone of our foreign policy. I very much look forward to our
subcommittee being a part of that effort.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to appear
before the Committee this afternoon and I look forward to your
testimony.
Chairman Baird. At this point I would normally defer to Mr.
Ehlers. Mr. Neugebauer, would you like to offer his commentary
or that of your own?
Mr. Neugebauer. I think he is on his way, and I will enter
my own if that is all right, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman Baird, and speaking of a very long
flight, I had the privilege of accompanying the Chairman, and
it was a very interesting flight, but there was a lot of
airplane time on that trip.
Thank you, Chairman and witnesses, for appearing here today
on this important subject. This issue is a small fraction but
no less critical than of that which is the dilemma that this
country faces regarding immigration policy. As we sit here
today, our country remains strongly divided over who we should
let in and from what country, and do we place a cap on certain
skills, and what will be the ultimate cost in dollars and
opportunities beyond the American taxpayers? But we also know
that this committee is a committee of good ideas, one that
where we can all agree that science has a place in our public
policy, and I, for one, believe that public policy based on
science and not emotion is the best policy.
The concerns I have over this issue do involve the
scientific community and particularly the medical community. In
my district of West Texas, like hundreds of other places, and
others in Congress, it is considered rural America. Today we
face a problem that is not just about the affordability of
health care, but, also how to access that health care.
It was about six months ago when I was contacted by a very
concerned constituent of mine who called not as one who needed
better access to health care but one who found she was
struggling to provide it. Dr. Leighann Jenkins is a Professor
and Chief of the Division of Cardiology at Texas Tech
University, School of Medicine, located in my district. She
approached me about her concerns regarding this issue, and upon
my request I asked that she put together her thoughts for me
for today's hearing. With the Chairman's allowance I would
request unanimous consent to insert her statement into the
record. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jenkins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Leighann Jenkins
Professor and Chief
Division of Cardiology
Texas Tech University School of Medicine
EXPANSION OF CONRAD 30 J-1 VISA PROGRAM TO MEDICAL SCHOOL FACULTY IS
IMPORTANT TO TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER
<bullet> The provisions of the current Conrad 30 J-1 Visa
program allowing states to waive maximum stay limits on foreign
medical graduates who agree to practice in medically under-
served areas has played an important role in the provision of
medical services to needy patients who might not otherwise have
access to care.
<bullet> Expanding the Conrad 30 J-1 Visa program waiver
provisions to include U.S. medical school faculty would address
a need faced by many schools that are finding it difficult and
sometimes impossible to recruit sufficient numbers of U.S.
trained medical specialists into medical school teaching and
clinical positions.
<bullet> Insufficient numbers of required specialists on
medical school faculties can limit the ability of schools to
provide quality educational opportunities for residents and
fellows and fulfill clinical service expectations.
Foreign medical graduates on J-1 visas are allowed to continue
their training in the U.S. for seven years. At the end of that time,
they are required to leave the U.S. unless they obtain a waiver to
remain in the country. Currently, the Conrad 30 program allows states
to waive J-1 visas to satisfy service needs in medically under-served
areas. By allowing these physicians to extend their stay in the U.S.,
medical care is provided to many patients who might not otherwise have
access to care. Currently U.S. teaching hospitals comprise one percent
of the Nation's hospitals but render 55 percent of the indigent care
provided.
It is important to note that these foreign medical students
typically represent the top students from their medical schools and
many have completed specialty training before arriving in the U.S. They
are subjected to rigorous testing (ECFMG) in the U.S. before being
accepted and undergo careful screening and personal scrutiny before
being allowed to continue their education here.
Expanding the Conrad 30 program to include medical school faculties
would be extremely beneficial to medical schools and their teaching and
clinical service missions while fulfilling the aim of providing care to
the medically under-served.
Mr. Neugebauer. I will not read that statement, but I will
just give you a few points. Leighann states, ``Insufficient
numbers of required specialists on medical school faculties can
limit the ability of the schools to provide quality education
opportunities for residents and fellows and fulfill the
clinical service expectations. Currently the Conrad 30 Program
allows states to waive J-1 visas to satisfy service needs in
medically under-served areas. By allowing these physicians to
extend their stay in the U.S., medical care is provided to many
patients who might not otherwise have access to this care.
Currently U.S. teaching hospitals comprise one percent of the
Nation's hospitals but render 55 percent of the indigent care
provided.''
So I think she brings up some extremely interesting points
about the ability of hospitals and medical schools to be able
to have the appropriate staffing levels to be able to continue
to turn out medical students. And so these are medical students
that are not necessarily foreign students, but these are
foreign scientists and physicians in our universities that are
helping us keep our medical schools accredited, and I think
that is a very important point.
And so as we move forward with this issue, Ms. Cotten, I
appreciate in your statement, you acknowledge that we cannot
know all that we have lost, the successes that might have been.
And clearly with 9/11 and the original issues of the World
Trade Center in 1993, we found a need to look at the folks that
are in our country and where they came from and those studying
sciences and to make sure that it is their interest in
sciences, for the benefit of the U.S. We also know that they
can contribute to our country as well and that not all people
that come into this country illegally are trying to do harm.
But the unfortunate thing is we do have to know why they are
here and what they are doing.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is going to be an
interesting discussion, and I thank you for calling this
hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer
Thank you Chairman Baird, and the witnesses for appearing today on
this important subject.
This issue is a small fraction, but no less critical than that
which is the dilemma this country faces regarding immigration policy.
As we sit here today, our country remains strongly divided, over who we
let in, from what country, do we place a cap on certain skill sets, and
what will be the ultimate cost both in dollars, opportunities and
beyond to the American taxpayer. But as we know, this is the committee
of good ideas. One where we can all agree that science has a place in
our public policy, I for one believe public policy be based on science,
and not emotion.
The concerns I have over this issue do involve the scientific
community, in particular the medical community. In my district in West
Texas, like hundreds of others in the Congress, it's considered ``Rural
America.'' Today, we face problems not just about affordability for
health care, but also access to health care. It was about six months
ago when I was contacted by a very concerned constituent of mine, who
called not as one who needed better access to health care, but one who
found she was struggling to provide it.
Dr. Leighann Jenkins is a Professor and Chief in the Division of
Cardiology at Texas Tech University School of Medicine located in my
district. She approached me with her concerns regarding this issue, and
upon my request I asked that she put together her thoughts for me for
today's hearing, with the Chairman's allowance, I'd like to request
unanimous consent to insert her statement into the record. I will
briefly read some of her statement:
Insufficient numbers of required specialists on medical school
faculties can limit the ability of schools to provide quality
educational opportunities for residents and fellows and fulfill
clinical service expectations.
Currently, the Conrad 30 program allows states to waive J-1
visas to satisfy service needs in medically under-served areas.
By allowing these physicians to extend their stay in the U.S.,
medical care is provided to many patients who might not
otherwise have access to care. Currently U.S. teaching
hospitals comprise one percent of the Nation's hospitals but
render 55 percent of the indigent care provided.
Ms. Cotton, I appreciated in your statement the acknowledgement
that ``We cannot know all that we have lost, the successes that might
have been.'' Clearly after 9/11, and even the original bombing of the
World Trade Center in 1993, we found the need to take a look at
foreigners studying hard sciences here in America, I think we may all
agree that the last thing we want to do is train tomorrow's terrorist.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. It was a
pleasure to travel with you, a journey like that together.
We have been joined on the Democratic side by Mr. Carnahan
and Mr. McNerney, Dr. McNerney, and Mr. Ehlers is recognized
for an opening statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
delayed on the way over here.
This is a very important issue. Sunday after church I was
tackled by several of our church members precisely on this
issue, but they were not talking about having scientists come
here but in one case it was musicians, and in another case it
was theologians. And the same principles apply. And so we
should all recognize that.
International students and scholars are an important part
of our science and technology economy and diplomacy. Whether
U.S. scientists and engineers are traveling abroad or foreign
scientists and engineers are coming here, the facilitation of
global scientific exchange is necessary to overcome many of our
global technology problems. In this flat world we must, indeed,
figure out a way to keep our country safe but open; but, open
only to those with no ill intent.
Only a small fraction of international students and
scholars receive the opportunity to study or teach in the
United States. The lucky ones often leave behind spouses and
children to pursue multi-year programs and appointments. In
recent years, some students have avoided returning home for
long periods of time because they fear possible delays and the
maze of red tape associated with getting back into the U.S.
Consequently, many of these students experience personal
hardship and sacrifice to follow their dream of studying at one
of our institutions. I think we are all aware of the impacts
this can have on universities and scientific progress. But the
human factor of this issue is often overlooked. I know many of
our witnesses have been working on a solution to this problem.
In the post-9/11 world, the Department of Homeland Security
and the Department of State have worked diligently to ensure
that students who pose no security risk to the U.S. can still
attend our higher educational institutions. Nonetheless, the
last six years have been challenging for both students,
scholars, and the government to find a critical balance of
interests.
It is encouraging to see the numbers indicating that
international student interest and attendance at U.S.
universities has rebounded. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about the progress and challenges still facing
our visa system.
I just want to add two more personal notes. First, when I
was a student at Berkeley, we were, as scientists throughout
the country, were eager to get Russian scientists into our
nation, because they were very capable people, had much to
contribute to our learning. And the Soviet government wouldn't
let them go, and we thought it was just horrible. Now it is
reversed. Although the union no longer exists, Russia allows
their scientists to come here, we don't let them get in. And it
is just absolutely ridiculous. Our country has gone 180 degrees
on this.
I also have a personal interest in this. My son, who is a
scientist, married a scientist from Europe, and they are having
incredible problems with the United States in terms of her
coming here, her staying here, her going back to Germany for
the summer as they are doing, and whether or not she can get
back in. It is just horrendous the hoops that anyone has to
jump through. If we really want to attract scientists from
other countries, we have to deal with these problems and deal
with them properly.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
International students and scholars are an important part of our
science and technology economy and diplomacy. Whether U.S. scientists
and engineers are traveling abroad or foreign scientists and engineers
are coming here, the facilitation of global scientific exchange is
necessary to overcome many of our global technology problems. In this
flat world, we must indeed figure out a way to keep our country safe
but open to those with no ill intent.
Only a small fraction of international students and scholars
receive the opportunity to study or teach in the U.S. The lucky ones
often leave behind spouses and children to pursue multi-year programs
and appointments. In recent years, some students have avoided returning
home for long periods of time because they fear possible delays and the
maze of red tape associated with getting back into the U.S.
Consequently, many of these students experience personal hardship and
sacrifice to follow their dream of studying at one of our institutions.
I think we are all aware of the impacts this can have on universities
and scientific progress, but the human factor of this issue is often
overlooked. I know many of our witnesses have been working on a
solution to this problem.
In the post-9/11 world, the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of State have worked diligently to ensure that students who
pose no security risk to the U.S. can still attend our higher
educational institutions. Nonetheless, the last six years have been
challenging for both students, scholars, and the government to find a
critical balance of interests. It is encouraging to see the numbers
indicating that international student interest and attendance at U.S.
universities has rebounded. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about the progress and challenges still facing our visa
system.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. As always, very
insightful comments and the personal experience, I think, is
one that if you are having that experience and your family
members are, though we have made some progress and the numbers
I think that Mr. Edson will share with us suggests
improvements, clearly a few anecdotes like that will circulate
rapidly and what we won't see are the people who just don't
even bother to apply and instead seek opportunities elsewhere.
This committee has had hearings on the expansion of
international, of U.S. universities overseas. We are well aware
that increasingly foreign scholars are finding opportunities in
the E.U., in Asia, in the Middle East, in Australia, et cetera,
and whereas our country was once the destination perhaps most
desired by scholars around the world, we are now,
unfortunately, I think, not looked at that way. Not because our
technological prowess is declined, but because it is just
frankly oftentimes perceived to be a headache.
Again, we are making progress there, but more progress is
needed.
As is the tradition of this committee, if there are Members
who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good afternoon. I want to thank Chairman Baird for holding today's
hearing. Most of the Members of this committee have research
universities and institutes in their districts, and the ability of
international students to come the United States to study, unimpeded,
is an important national issue.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Edson's testimony was interesting to
note that the number of J-1 visas issued in fiscal year 2007 for
Guangzhou, China, rose by 51 percent, relative to 2006.
One visit to our nation's premier universities confirms the fact
that international students come here in record numbers. This trend is
a testament to our nation's competitiveness in the research
laboratories.
Although it is unlikely that these students pose a security threat,
the Visa Service must walk a fine line to expeditiously process the
visa requests and ensure that our nation is safe. I would be interested
to know what the real risks are, when it comes to researchers who come
into this country to do their work. I would also like to know why visas
from the Middle East have declined so sharply: is it because students
and workers from these areas are not trying to come to our nation, or
because they are having difficulty entering the country.
In addition, I am glad that Dr. Fineberg of the National Academies
has recommended that ``Cuban scholars and researchers should not be
denied U.S. visas simply because they are employed at universities
operated by the Cuban government or because of their political ideology
or nationality.''
Congressional colleagues and I have made several trips to Cuba in
the past few years and have witnesses the negative affects on the
citizens there of the trade and other restrictions. It is a particular
shame that the research community has now been affected. I agree with
the National Academies recommendations and hope that my Congressional
colleagues and the Administration will heed their advice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Baird. And at this time I would like to introduce
our witnesses, and I will apologize in order that we hear more
from you we will keep your resumes shorter than they deserve.
They, you are all extraordinarily impressive individuals, and
so the introductions will be rather brief.
Mr. Stephen ``Tony'' Edson is the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Visa Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs
at the Department of State. Dr. Harvey Fineberg is the
President of the Institute of Medicine at the National
Academies. Dr. Allan Goodman is President and CEO of the
Institute of International Education, which actually oversees
the aforementioned Fulbright Program is my understanding. And
Ms. Catheryn Cotten is the Director of International Office at
Duke University and has had personal dealings with I don't know
how many thousands it sounded like from your testimony of
students dealing and scholars, dealing with the very issues we
will hear from today.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each, after which Members of the Committee will
have five minutes each to ask questions, and we would like to
start with Mr. Edson, and we appreciate, again, very much your
time. Mr. Edson.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEPHEN A. ``TONY'' EDSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR VISA SERVICE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR
AFFAIRS, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Edson. Thank you very much, Chairman Baird, Ranking
Member Ehlers, and Members of the Committee for allowing me the
opportunity to give you an update on the status of the
Department of State's visa procedures for foreign students and
scholars.
I am happy to report that we are working diligently to
streamline the process to attract the best and the brightest
foreign students and scholars to the United States while
maintaining the high security standards vital to protect this
nation. The Department is aware of the particular interest this
committee has had with regard to these applicants, and we
appreciate your support in our efforts to improve and expand
visa services for them.
Foreign students contribute over 13 billion annually to the
well-being of this country. Their work significantly boosts our
academic and scientific research, and their exposure to our
culture and freedoms is a crucial public diplomacy success. In
fiscal year 2007, we issued over 10 percent more student and
exchange visitor visas than in the previous year, in 2006, and
we surpassed 2001 levels for student and scholar visas by 16
percent. At some of our busiest posts the number of student
visas grew even more dramatically. For example, in China the
numbers were up 38 percent in Beijing and 51 percent in
Guangzhou over fiscal year 2006 totals, and in India, the
largest source country for foreign students, student visa
issuances in Mumbai increased by 55 percent and in Chennai by
34 percent.
We are moving quickly to make our entire visa process more
electronic through an online visa application process, an
online appointment system, which 70 of our posts are currently
using in its first form, and online fee payment. A fully
electronic process will provide for more accurate and
verifiable information, allow for fraud screening in advance of
interview when it is necessary rather than afterwards, and
increases convenience for applicants, allowing them to make
arrangements from the United States before they travel, for
example, and standardizing the process worldwide.
We issued guidance in January of this year to allow
consular officers to waive the visa interview for some
categories of renewal applicants who have previously provided
ten fingerprints, been interviewed, and received visas. This is
an authority authorized under the Intelligence Reform Act that
we are finally able to take advantage of because of our ten
fingerprint collection process. Eligibility for the exception
to interview includes student and exchange visitor visa
applicants applying for the same program of study within one
year of expiration of the previous visa, again, after the ten
prints have been collected.
For the approximately three percent of our applicants who
actually require additional review and clearance through the
Washington agencies back here, that process now averages about
14 days for the Visas Mantis, which is the most common
screening method that might be applied to students, and it is
important to note that that interagency clearance process
actually, although it is perceived to be a major issue, applies
to a very small fraction of students and scholars around the
world.
The State Department continues to coordinate an annual
interagency review of the technology alert list, which is the
tool that drives that Visas Mantis screening process, and
established two years ago a permanent interagency Security
Advisory Opinion Requirements Review Board, a mechanism that
could formally look at that process and others on an ongoing
basis to make sure that they are given the rigorous, continuous
review and improvement that they deserve.
Since September, 2001, we have created 570 new consular
officer positions around the world. It is about an 18 percent
increase in our adjudication staff. We were able to work with
our partners at DHS to increase to 120 days the amount of time
before studies begin that a student can apply for a visa, thus
moving that summer rush period earlier into the late spring,
and we do post and update visa appointment wait times on the
Internet for all of our applicants. We provide expedited
appointments for students in any event so that they are able to
get their visas or get their interviews in time to attend the
beginning of classes.
We continue to look to the future, particularly efforts to
further leverage technology and biometrics in the visa process,
to further improve security and facilitation for legitimate
travelers. And I am happy to discuss any of those initiatives,
of course, that are of interest to the Committee.
We have shown steady increases in the number of students
coming to the U.S. over the past several years through our
efforts to work with the scientific and academic research
communities, to be as responsive as possible to their need,
which maintaining the integrity of the visa process.
And we appreciate your continued interest in our work.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Edson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen A. ``Tony'' Edson
Thank you very much, Chairman Baird and Members of the Committee,
for allowing me the opportunity to give you an update on the status of
the State Department's visa policy and procedures for foreign students
and scholars. My. colleague, the Consular Bureau's Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary Janice Jacobs, has presented testimony in 2003 and
2004 on this same subject. I am happy to report that, while our
commitment to security has not diminished, we have worked diligently to
streamline the process to attract and bring the best and brightest
foreign students and scholars to the United States. The Department is
aware of the particular interest this committee has with regard to
these students, and we appreciate your support of our efforts to
improve and expand visa services for students.
Foreign students contribute over $13 billion annually to the
economic well-being of this country. Their work significantly boosts
our academic and scientific research and their exposure to our culture
and freedoms is a crucial public diplomacy success. Although foreign
governments, prospective students, and educational associations
continue to say publicly that the visa process is a serious hindrance
to student and exchange visitors, the numbers tell a different story:
we have issued more than ever before. In 2007, we issued ten percent
more business, student, and exchange visitor visas than last year. In
some of our busiest posts, the rate of increase has been far greater.
And we have surpassed 2001 levels for student and scholar visas by
90,000, or 16 percent. All of this progress has come despite
competition from schools in Europe, Canada, and Australia with lower
tuitions and aggressive recruiting program.
Exchange visitor numbers have risen to historic highs. In FY 2007,
we issued 343,946 J-1 visas, 11 percent more than the same period in FY
2006, and we have exceeded our FY 2001 levels by 82,000 visas. The same
is true for vocational student visas, where we have exceeded our FY
2001 levels by an incredible 71 percent.
At some of our busiest posts, the number of student visas grew even
more dramatically. For example, in China, the number of student visas
issued increased by 38 percent in Beijing and 51 percent in Guangzhou
over FY 2006 totals. In India, the largest source country for foreign
students, student visa issuances in Mumbai increased by 55 percent and
in Chennai by 34 percent. At another historically high student visa
post, Seoul, Korea, the number of student visas issued increased seven
percent. Student and exchange visitor visa issuances in many Middle
East posts also continue to increase, though they are still about six
percent below 2001 levels.
Let me specifically address the several questions you posed in your
invitation letter. Then I will conclude with an overview of the current
outlook for visa policies for students and scholars.
We pursue the dual goals of keeping our country safe and of
welcoming qualified students, and both are important. A policy of
``secure borders, open doors'' is not a contradiction: we can and must
guard our country against threats to our security and sensitive
technology, while at the same time facilitating legitimate travel. In
fact, the State Department supports facilitation of international
education as a matter of national security. The value of the
interpersonal exchanges and cross-cultural understanding that come
about through international education helps to create a more stable
world.
We employ the same safeguards against security threats from
prospective students and scholars as we do for all visa applicants
through a number of name-based and biometric checks: each applicant's
fingerprints are checked against the interagency IDENT database of
qualified travelers, suspected terrorists, international criminals and
immigration violators, and, as of January 1, are also screened through
the FBI's IAFIS criminal database. All visa applicant photos are also
screened against a facial recognition database of suspected terrorists
and visa violators. Each visa applicant's name and biodata are also
checked against a name-based database with over 32 million interagency
entries. In addition, for certain types of travelers, including
students and scholars with expertise in fields of nonproliferation
concern, we require an interagency analysis of their application data,
called a Visas Mantis clearance.
We are also facilitating students and scholars by continuing to
make our process more transparent and efficient. We have taken several
steps to improve the process:
1. The State Department has instructed posts to make students
a priority so that they may travel in time to begin their
course of study. All posts have procedures in place to expedite
student and scholar applicants, even on short notice. Having
focused on cutting wait times for interviews, I can report that
90 percent of our posts have wait times of less than 30 days
for student and business travelers. Our goal is to be closer to
100 percent of posts at the 30-day or less level by the end of
this year.
2. We are moving quickly to make our entire visa process more
electronic through an online visa application process (further
discussed below), an online appointment system (which over 70
posts now use), and online fee payment. A fully electronic
process provides more accurate and verifiable information,
allows for fraud screening in advance of the visa interview,
increases convenience for applicants, and standardizes the
process worldwide.
3. We issued guidance in January 2008 to allow consular
officers to waive the visa interview for some categories of
renewal applicants, who have previously provided 10
fingerprints, been interviewed and received visas. Under INA
222(h), consular officers may waive the interview requirement
for applicants applying at the consular post of their usual
residence, who are applying for a visa in the same visa class
as their current visa, who have not been refused a visa, and
who present no national security concerns requiring an
interview. Those eligible for the exception to the interview
requirement include student and exchange visitor visa
applicants reapplying for their same program of study within
one year of the expiration of their existing visa. This means
that if students or exchange visitors are eligible for a waiver
of the interview and have already provided ten prints in a
previous NIV application, the consular officer may waive the
interview and issue a visa without requiring those applicants
to appear in person or provide new prints. This process will
allow us to focus our interviews on the highest-risk applicants
while facilitating the visa renewals of legitimate travelers.
4. For the approximately three percent of our applicants
requiring additional review and clearance, we improved the
interagency clearance process, which now averages 14 days for
the most common student clearance, the Visas Mantis. The State
Department reviews the Technology Alert List each year,
eliminating those items which do not appear to pose a risk and
adding any new areas of concern. The Security Advisory Opinion
Requirements Review Board (SAORRB) is a permanent interagency
management structure to oversee and continually improve the
process of visa issuance. For instance, in May 2007 the SAORRB
agreed to change the Visas Eagle clearance (used for immigrants
from certain former and current Communist countries,
eliminating over a quarter of the total number of clearances
yearly.
As the number of potential students continues to grow, we have to
work harder to increase the transparency, efficiency, and
predictability of the visa process across the board, with a special
focus on student and exchange visitor visas. Here are just some of our
initiatives:
<bullet> Since September 2001, we have created 570 new
consular positions to handle a growing visa demand and the
added security measures in our visa adjudication process.
<bullet> As part of the Rice/Chertoff Joint Vision, students
can now apply for visas up to 120 days before their studies
begin.
<bullet> We post and update visa appointment wait times on our
Internet website. When our wait times increase, which often
occurs in the busy summer months, all posts give students and
exchange visitors priority.
<bullet> All of our Embassies and Consulates expedite student
and exchange visitor visa applications, to ensure no qualified
student is denied the opportunity to be issued a visa in time
to start his or her program. In addition, student and exchange
visitor applications are given top priority in the clearance
process, should additional clearances be necessary.
Applicants subject to the Visas Mantis process are required to
provide additional documentation that helps Washington, DC reviewers
obtain a clearer sense of an applicant's background and reason for
travel. As appropriate in individual cases, these documents normally
include:
(1) Complete resumes (and, if accompanying the applicant, a
professional spouse's resume);
(2) Complete list of publications of the applicant (and, the
spouse's publications if required);
(3) List of references in the applicant's country of birth or
residence;
(4) Detailed descriptions of the applicant's proposed research
or work in the U.S.;
(5) Letters of invitation from the U.S. sponsor;
(6) Letters of recommendation from a U.S. source or from
abroad;
(7) Letters of support from the financial sponsor; and
(8) Detailed itinerary.
The Department provides a variety of training opportunities and
other resources to our consular officers in Washington and in the
field. A Visas Mantis component is included in the basic consular
training course, and country-specific briefings are offered to officers
en route to posts with significant Mantis volume. The Bureau of
Consular Affairs, working with the Foreign Service Institute, is
developing online consular refresher courses, including a module on the
Visas Mantis process. These training modules will be rolled out in
early 2008, and available worldwide.
In addition to formal training courses and briefings, the
Department provides ongoing guidance to posts on Visas Mantis issues,
including more than 25 video-conferences with dozens of Foreign Service
posts. While most of the Visa Mantis dialogue takes place with the
relatively small number of very active Visas Mantis posts, any post may
query the Visa Office about a Mantis case or a more general Visas
Mantis issue. The Visa Office also maintains a designated Visas Mantis
web page available worldwide containing numerous online references.
We are continuing to put new systems in place to improve our visa
processing efficiency. We are currently developing a Consolidated Visa
System, which will incorporate all of our current non-immigrant (NIV)
and immigrant visa (IV) processing systems into one. The consolidated
visa system will improve information and work flow data reporting,
thereby boosting the Department's ability to manage and standardize
visa processing with our consular managers in the field.
We are also moving towards all-electronic correspondence. For
instance, our National Visa Center already does the bulk of its
communication with IV petitioners and applicants electronically, which
saves hundreds of thousands of dollars on printing and postage costs.
We hope to make correspondence for the Diversity Visa (DV) program
fully electronic by 2009.
Once we have an online NIV application, we will have a wealth of
electronic information about our applicants. We plan to perform some
fraud and security screening in advance, for instance to verify the
applicant's U.S. contacts, including company and petitioner checks.
These checks could include automated corroboration of applicant data,
searches of relevant DHS records, and searches in U.S. visa records to
identify issues that require closer examination.
This online NIV application will be linked to an online appointment
system and require fee payment online. In Mexico this year, along with
the pilot of the online NIV application in Mexico, we will pilot the
collection of ten prints off-site at a secure facility, another way we
are working to simplify our procedures while keeping security
paramount.
We are also developing procedures to interview by video-conference,
or by sending an officer to perform some interviews off-site. Legal and
practical issues need to be resolved before we can deploy these
technologies, but we continue to explore strategies for deployment in
the interim. Our work in this area has already provided solutions for
expanding services we can offer through out-sourcing strategies.
We continue to discuss with DHS/USCIS the move toward a
consolidated electronic process for handling visa applications
requiring USCIS-approved petitions. We are working with USCIS'
Transformation Program Office to be sure that our plans are aligned to
create a uniform, person-centric immigration process. For instance, we
already share USCIS petition information electronically with posts,
through a program called PIMS.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. We appreciate the
Committee's continued interest in our work. I would like to note that
we publish general visa statistics on issuances and refusals, by
category and region, each year on our public website:
www.travel.state.gov and would like to submit for the record copies of
our latest statistics. I am pleased to take your questions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Biography for Stephen A. ``Tony'' Edson
Stephen A. ``Tony'' Edson joined the United States Foreign Service
in 1981 and is currently serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Visa Services in the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Consular
Affairs. Prior to that, Mr. Edson served as Managing Director of Visa
Services and Senior Advisor for Strategic Planning to the Visa Services
Directorate from 2001 until 2005. He served as Consul General at the
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia from June 1998 until January 2001.
He has also held overseas diplomatic assignments in Naha, Tokyo,
Bangkok, and Mumbai.
Mr. Edson graduated from the University of Kansas with a B.A. in
East Asian Language and Culture in 1980. He holds a Master's in
Management from the Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration
at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand and a Master's of
Science degree in National Security Strategy from the National War
College, Ft. McNair, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Fineberg.
STATEMENT OF DR. HARVEY V. FINEBERG, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Fineberg. Thank you very much, Chairman Baird, Ranking
Member Ehlers, and Members of the Committee. It is a pleasure
for me to have the privilege to spend this time with you, and I
want to use my oral testimony to supplement and reinforce the
written testimony that I submitted previously.
Just this morning before coming over to the hearing I had a
meeting at our offices at the National Academies with a
delegation from Croatia. The delegation was here in part
because the minister of science, education, and sports, a great
collection of responsibilities I thought, was invited by the
President to attend the prayer breakfast this morning. To the
minister this was an enormous privilege and greatly
appreciated. What struck me was that this minister was an
individual who was trained in Croatia but had spent time as a
student in the United States, had come back to spend some time
on a faculty and to teach in the United States. He had taken
back to his home in the position of responsibility that he now
has, the values and the lessons, as well as the technologic
expertise that he gained during his time in the United States.
That is a story which is repeated for me personally scores
of times every year, and it is repeated around the world
literally thousands of times. The good that we are doing, not
just for the world, but in the enlightened self-interest of the
United States in keeping our doors open to the kind of
students, scientists, and scholars represented by this
minister, is incalculably good in ways that vastly overshadow
the $13 billion of revenues that the students from overseas
bring to the United States.
It is imperative for our own interest that we maintain the
opportunity for individuals around the world to spend this time
in the United States, to gain not only their own professional
knowledge, but to bring to us the benefit that they have in the
ways that you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ehlers both cited, as did
Mr. Neugebauer in his opening remarks today.
We have done a lot of things better than had been true
years ago after 9/11, and the improvements that Mr. Edson
recited are notable and laudable. In particular, I want to take
special note of the point he made of the decision in January to
authorize our consular officers to issue to renewal applicants
who satisfy certain criteria a visa without the requirement for
an interview. This is an important step forward, and it is an
example of the kind of clear-headed, straightforward
adjustments that we can make that will simultaneously keep our
borders secure and open our doors to students and scholars from
overseas.
The challenge that we have is great because we need to
focus our resources where the risks are highest and not have a
uniform approach to every applicant from every corner of the
world. And it is by using this kind of selective decision-
making that we can do that.
We should be doing more. For example, we should be able to
find a way to domestically reissue student and exchange visitor
visas for those who have remained here in the United States in
status and are applying again for the same visa application. We
ought not to require those individuals to leave the United
States. It is hard for me to understand why they can be better
assessed in Bulgaria than they can in Boston for the security
interests of our country.
We applaud the review of the technology alert list. We
believe that that review also should be conducted with the
engagement of outside scientists, engineers, and experts so
that the Department can take advantage of the best thinking of
what really represents today a list of relevant expertise that
ought to be carefully judged.
And we also believe that some of our requirements should be
explained more clearly to applicants and to our consular
officers, particularly what is called Section 214(b), a section
that requires visitors to demonstrate that they do not intend
to immigrate illegally.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your
questions and to the discussion today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fineberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harvey V. Fineberg
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name
is Harvey Fineberg, and I am President of the Institute of Medicine
(IOM). Chartered in 1970 and a component of the National Academies
(which also includes the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering, and National Research Council), the IOM provides
unbiased, evidence-based, authoritative information and advice
concerning health and science policy to policy-makers, professionals,
leaders in every sector of society, and the public at large.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify today to remind
Members of this committee of the important contributions foreign-born
scholars, scientists, and engineers have made and continue to make to
this country. Foreign-born scientists and engineers have come to the
United States over the years, stayed in large numbers, and we are more
prosperous and more secure, in large part, because of them.
Importance of Foreign Scientists and International Collaborations
Fifty years ago, many of the United States' scientific leaders came
from Europe. There are the famous names like Einstein, Fermi, and
Teller (without whom we might not have been the first to build the
atomic and hydrogen bombs), von Braun (without whom we would not be
ascendant in rockets and space), and von Neumann (without whom we might
not be leaders in computing and information technology). But there are
dozens more names, like Bethe and Godel, who may not be known to the
general public, but who formed the backbone of American science and
engineering--plus an enormous number of journeymen scientists and
engineers whose individual contributions will never be celebrated, but
without whom the United States would be neither as prosperous nor as
secure as it is.
Today, it is not just Europeans who contribute to our prosperity
and security; the names are like those of Praveen Chaudhary (former
Director of Brookhaven National Lab), Venkatesh Narayanamurti (Dean of
the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard), C.N.
Yang, (Nobel Laureate physicist, from the Institute for Advanced Study
in Princeton), Katepalli Sreenivasan, (recent Director of the Institute
for Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland, and
current Director of the Center for International and Theoretical
Physics); and Elias Zerhouni (Director of the National Institutes of
Health).
Importance of International Students
International exchanges of students and skilled professionals can
benefit both the sending and receiving countries. Certainly, the U.S.
science and engineering research enterprise depends critically on
international students and scholars.
The United States has relied upon a steadily growing influx of
graduate students and postdoctoral scholars from throughout the world.
International students now constitute more than a third of U.S. science
and engineering (S&E) graduate school enrollments, up from less than a
quarter in 1982. More than half of the S&E postdoctoral fellows are
temporary residents, half of whom earned a doctorate degree outside the
United States.\1\ Including undergraduates, more than a half million
foreign citizens are studying at colleges and universities in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering
Indicators, 2004 (NSB 04-2), Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the international students educated in this country choose
to remain here after receiving their degrees. More than 70 percent of
the foreign-born S&E doctorates who received their degrees in 2001
remained in the United States for more than two years.\2\ These skilled
migrants are an important source of innovation for the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ M.G. Finn. 2003. Stay rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients
from U.S. Universities, 2001. Oak Ridge, TN: ORISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importance of International Scientific Exchanges
Equally important, but often lost in this discussion, are short-
term visits of international scientists to the United States. Many of
these individuals are prominent researchers, officers in international
scientific organizations, or members of their national academies of
science. Many are invited speakers or presenters at scientific meetings
or need to come to the United States to consult with partners on
collaborative projects. Many have been to this country a number of
times in the past. They are reasonable, intelligent people, and the
kind of people our country wants as friends.
Unfortunately, we are alienating them one at a time. Some of our
visa policies simply do not make sense to them, and they become
irritated enough with their experiences that they vow not to return to
the United States, and unfortunately, they tell their colleagues about
their experiences.
When enough people have concerns, we lose the goodwill of our
partners, and meetings begin to be held outside of the United States.
Even before the ICSU President Goverdhan Mehta encountered difficulties
obtaining a U.S. visa in 2005, the International Council of Sciences
was reluctant to encourage meetings in the United States. In 2007, the
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) debated long
and hard whether to hold the 2011 General Assembly in Puerto Rico or
Turkey. Puerto Rico narrowly won, but the debate focused on U.S. visa
policy, and particularly whether scientists, especially those from
Cuba, will be able to get the necessary U.S. visas to attend.
The National Academies' International Visitors Office
The National Academies' International Visitors Office (IVO), funded
by the presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, assists
international scientists in their efforts to come to the United States
for meetings and other collaborations. The office works closely with
the Office of Consular Affairs at the State Department. Personnel there
have been extremely responsive to our concerns, and we commend that
office for its work.
The IVO collects information on large scientific meetings in the
United States and forwards that information to the State Department for
distribution to embassies and consulates worldwide. Since 2003, the IVO
has registered 420 meetings, 104 in 2007 alone. The IVO also provides
meeting organizers with general information on the visa process, advice
on what applicants can do in the event of a visa delay or denial, and
individual assistance to their attendees as needed.
In addition, the IVO:
<bullet> Maintains a Web-based questionnaire to collect
information on visa difficulties experienced within the
scientific community;
<bullet> Reviews and analyzes data collected to report
relevant statistics on the nature and scope of the problem;
<bullet> Maintains contact with the Department of State, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies that either
administer visa programs or work with visa-related issues; and
<bullet> Works directly with the State Department's Office of
Consular Affairs to resolve specific cases.
From the fall of 2002 through the end of December 2007, 5,878 cases
have been reported to the IVO, and almost 900 of these were in 2007
alone. One of our primary messages is APPLY EARLY, yet still there are
problems. For example, the International Union of Pure and Applied
Biology (IUPAB) will have its 16th International Biophysics Congress in
Long Beach, California on February 2-6. As of January 25, many of the
30-member Chinese delegation were still awaiting their visas, including
the head of the delegation, a man who will be on the ballot for IUPAB
President.
I wish I could say that this delegation's experience is unique.
Unfortunately, it is not. Over and over, we hear of prominent
scientists who have not received a decision on their visas with only
days left before a meeting. They end up canceling flights, and losing
money on meeting registrations and hotel reservations. We also continue
to receive regular reports from scientists who receive their visas
after the meeting has passed. None of this engenders goodwill toward
the United States.
Other complaints that we hear regularly are:
<bullet> Difficulty scheduling visa interviews, and long waits
once scheduled;
<bullet> Denial of visas due to ``lack of ties'' to home
country despite clear evidence of scientific employment;
<bullet> Delays due to security clearances;
<bullet> Delays despite all documents being in order;
<bullet> Inability to extend J-1 visas from within the United
States; and
<bullet> Arrogant and rude treatment upon entry to the United
States by immigration and customs officials.
The Impact of 9/11 and Globalization
To be sure, 9/11 and globalization have changed the balance point.
Both have caused the United States to fundamentally rethink our
policies, but we need to make sure that new policies put into place
make sense and do not do more harm than good. The international image
of the United States has been one of a welcoming ``land of
opportunity''; we are in the process, however, of replacing it with one
of a xenophobic, suspicious, fearful nation. The policies that
superficially appear to make us more secure also are, ironically,
having the opposite effect.
Protecting Americans from threats obviously must be a high
priority, but real security will be achieved only by a proper balance
of excluding those who would harm us and welcoming those who would do
us good, by a proper balance of openness and secrecy. With selected,
thoughtful changes to U.S. policies, we can achieve both goals, making
our homeland safer and our economy stronger.
Ensuring Security
The National Academies agrees that the Nation must take precautions
to ensure security. If visits by foreigners to the Unites States are
considered especially at risk, then the system must be protected with
the technologies, information, and resources needed to do a proper job.
Anything less, and the system remains vulnerable. Some visa
applications must be carefully subjected to expert scrutiny to ensure
our national security, but the level of security must be tailored to
the magnitude of the risk. This can be done by educating and training
staff and keeping security procedures focused and streamlined. We need
to determine where protection is essential--and then protect those
areas vigorously.
The current system:
<bullet> Fails to identify the most vulnerable points of the
system (everyone interviewed);
<bullet> Spreads resources too thin by treating all applicants
as equal threats (thereby preventing in-depth interviews);
<bullet> Does not manage information well--does not have
necessary focus on identifying those who pose the biggest
threat (more security does not make us more secure; better
management does);
<bullet> Lowers people's sensitivity to the most critical
elements of the system;
<bullet> Builds ill-will against the United States through
repetitive processing of those with a good track record; and
<bullet> Diverts resources from monitoring those who pose a
higher risk.
Security in the broadest sense must be achieved through
accumulation of new knowledge and the wise application of it. If we
include too many applicants in the security review procedures, then the
bureaucratic burden in guarding the entire system becomes excessive--
leading to inefficiencies, delays, and security risks. The United
States needs to recognize what is important to secure and what is of
limited or marginal significance, and respond appropriately. Not
everyone is of equal risk.
Academic Visits and Exchanges With Cuba
I also would like to say a word about Cuba. Section 212(f) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, authorizes the
President to deny entry ``of any class of aliens into the United States
[who] would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.''
President Ronald Reagan built on that policy, and, in Presidential
Proclamation 5377, restricted the entry into the United States of
officers or employees of the Cuban Government or the Communist Party of
Cuba. Since all education and research institutions in Cuba are State
entities, as are many public universities in the United States,
scientists and scholars are denied entry into the United States solely
because their employer is the Cuban state.
The policy has been unevenly applied through the years, but has
been strictly enforced since 2004 when Congress and the Administration
made democracy in Cuba a high national priority. From January through
October 2004, only five professors from the University of Havana were
granted visas to travel to the United States in response to invitations
to give classes and lectures, or for research visits. Prior to 2004,
approximately 25 university faculty members traveled each month to the
United States for such visits.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Retreat from Reason: U.S.-Cuban Academic Relations and the Bush
Administration. Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Washington,
DC, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fall 2004, more than 60 Cuban scholars were denied visas to
attend the XXV International Congress of the Latin American Studies
Association (LASA) held October 7-9, 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Their
applications had been pending since May. In early 2006, 58 Cuban
scholars and researchers were denied visas to attend the XXVI LASA
Congress in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
In explaining the 2004 decision, State Department spokesman Richard
Boucher made clear that the visas had been denied ``as a group'' on
political grounds:
[T]he primary purpose of denying these visas is . . . to bring
the pressure on the Cuban Government and on people who are
employed by the Cuban Government so that they understand that
their treatment of people in Cuba has implications. . .\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ State Department Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, October
7, 2004, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2004/36917.htm
Denials of Cuban visa applications have become routine. A letter
from Bengt Gustafsson, Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics at the
University of Uppsala, Sweden and Chairman of the International Council
for Science's Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of
Science, expressing concern about this situation and two recent cases
involving prominent Cuban scientists was published in the October 22,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Dr. Gustafsson wrote:
I am writing to express my grave concern as to the current
policies and practices of the U.S. Government with regard to
visas for scientists from Cuba. The President-Elect of the
Federation of Latin American Chemical Societies, Alberto Nunez,
was invited by American Chemical Society to attend its recent
meeting in Boston on Aug. 18-24. He applied for a visa in good
time and made his arrangements to fly to Boston from Havana
immediately after returning from a series of International
Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) meetings in Europe.
He received notification from the U.S. State Department on Aug.
14, when he was still in Europe, that his visa application had
been denied.
The reasons for the visa refusal for Nunez, who has previously
visited the U.S., were not communicated. However, his case
mirrors that of another eminent Cuban scientist, Miguel Garcia
Roche, who is President of the Latin American Regional Group
for Food Science, which is affiliated with the International
Union for Food Science & Technology. He was refused a visa in
June to attend a meeting of the American national affiliate to
the union.
In both of these cases, the result is that the Latin American
scientific community has been excluded from representation in
meetings of American scientific societies. This is in clear
breach of the principle of universality, as articulated in the
International Council for Science statute 5, which is adhered
to by IUPAC and all affiliated unions:
``The principle of the Universality of Science is fundamental
to scientific progress. This principle embodies freedom of
movement, association, expression and communication for
scientists, as well as equitable access to data, information
and research materials. In pursuing its objectives in respect
of the rights and responsibilities of scientists, the
International Council for Science (ICSU) actively upholds this
principle, and, in so doing, opposes any discrimination on the
basis of such factors as ethnic origin, religion, citizenship,
language, political stance, gender, sex or age. ICSU shall not
accept disruption of its own activities by statements or
actions that intentionally or otherwise prevent the application
of this principle.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/85/i43/html/
8543letters.html
While every country has the discretion to decide who it will allow
to enter its borders, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the
American Convention on Human Rights all preclude discrimination on the
grounds of political belief or association. As affirmed by the American
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association for the Advancement of Science,
[t]he power of nation[s] to exclude aliens seeking to enter
their territory on a temporary (visitor) basis . . . must be
exercised reasonably [under international law], without
discrimination, and without arbitrariness. Under the non-
discrimination standard, governments must ensure that their
laws, regulations and administrative practices do not use race,
sex, religion, nationality, color, political beliefs or other
invidious classifications as a basis for denying entry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Alastair T. Iles and Marton Sklar, The Right to Travel: An
essential Freedom for Scientists and Academics, Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science and Human
Rights Program, February 1996.
While the United States Government may believe that the current
policy toward Cuban academics is a reasonable one, it has become a
serious concern within the international science community. As
mentioned earlier, the U.S. policy of refusing entry to Cuban
scientists on political grounds combined with the difficulties that
foreign scientists continue to experience in attempting to secure visas
or gain entry into this country are actively discouraging foreign
scientists from applying for visas and international scientific
organizations from holding meetings here.
Action Agenda
The National Academies has been actively involved in discussions on
U.S. visa policy with the higher education community, scientific
societies, and the Federal Government, including the Departments of
State, Homeland Security, and Commerce. Important changes in
Administration policy have been made to meet a number of the concerns
of the research community; however, further improvements in policies
and their implementation are needed.
1. Congress should relax the requirement that all visa
applicants be interviewed. We need to avoid repetitive
processing, especially of those with a proven track record.
Many visa applicants invest considerable time and effort to
travel to and apply for U.S. visas at our nation's embassies
and consulates. Consular officers should again be given the
discretion to waive the interview requirement for those who
have been to this country multiple times and who have
established reputations and strong professional connections in
their home countries. This is especially needed for China
because visas issued to Chinese citizens are of particularly
short duration due to reciprocity agreements. Current
agreements result in a higher percentage of repeat applicants.
2. The Technology Alert List (TAL) should be reviewed
regularly by scientists and engineers outside the government,
and scientifically trained personnel should be involved in the
security-review process.\7\ The Technology Alert List was
originally developed as a screening tool to prevent
nonproliferation. Now, however, it is also used to screen
scientists and students in scientific fields. Visas Mantis
security reviews are triggered by matches against the TAL. The
list is no longer public, but when it was, the science
community noticed that much of the information on the TAL was
already in the public domain or could be obtained from multiple
countries and sources. The National Academies and the higher
education and scientific communities have offered to assist
with the revision of this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ This recommendation was contained in two recent NRC reports:
Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral
Scholars in the United States, National Academy Press, NRC, 2006.
Science and Security in a Post 9/11 World, National Academies Press,
NRC, 2007.
3. The State Department should find a way to domestically
reissue student and exchange visitor visas for those who have
remained in status and are applying for the same visa
classification. This has long been a priority of the higher
education and scientific communities, and was included in the
2004 and 2005 joint community statements.\8\ This
recommendation was also included in the Department of Homeland
Security's Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee's
recent report.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine signed
onto the May 18, 2005 joint community statement on visa policy. A
similar statement issued in May 2004. Both proved extremely effective
in stimulating action on a set of common issues. See http://
www.aau.edu/homeland/05VisaStatement.pdf and http://www.aau.edu/
homeland/JointVisaStatement.pdf
\9\ Secure Borders and Open Doors: Preserving Our Welcome to the
World in an Age of Terrorism. Secure Borders and Open Doors Advisory
Committee, Department of Homeland Security, 2008.
4. Section 214(b) should be revisited as a screening tool, and
explanations for denials should be clearer. Section 214(b) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that applicants
for student or visitor visas prove to the satisfaction of
consular officials that they do not intend to immigrate
illegally to the U.S. Because the criteria for proof of non-
intent are not clear, either to visa applicants or to consular
officials, this provision has been the cause of many problems.
Denials are often form letters that simply refer to Section
214(b), a reference not helpful to applicants. One could remove
this burden of proof from science students and scholars who
participate in qualified academic programs, exchanges, and
meetings by allowing consular officials to accept certified
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
statements of intent not to immigrate.
5. The politicization of decisions about the entry of Cubans
using Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
should end. Cuban scholars and researchers should not be denied
U.S. visas simply because they are employed at universities
operated by the Cuban government or because of their political
ideology or nationality.
Finally, I would like to end with an observation from Secure
Borders and Open Doors:
Today's visa process is not necessarily more error-prone than
in the past; however, the omnipresence of telecommunications
and news media, as well as enhanced global competitiveness,
magnifies the impact of actual and perceived errors. While any
specific category of error may be small, their impact can be
great on individuals and specific groups, and on the cumulative
perception of the process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ibid, page 27.
The United States must continue to encourage and welcome talented
students, scholars, and scientists from around the world. While
progress has been made with respect to granting visas for foreign
students and scholars, we must continue to work to ensure that policies
and practices are in place that encourage the free movement of foreign
students and scholars to and from the United States.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Science and Security in a Post 9/11 World, National Academies
Press, NRC, 2007. Report recommendation number 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be pleased to
answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
Attachment 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Biography for Harvey V. Fineberg
Harvey V. Fineberg is President of the Institute of Medicine. He
served as Provost of Harvard University from 1997 to 2001, following
thirteen years as Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health. He has
devoted most of his academic career to the fields of health policy and
medical decision-making. His past research has focused on the process
of policy development and implementation, assessment of medical
technology, evaluation and use of vaccines, and dissemination of
medical innovations.
Dr. Fineberg helped found and served as President of the Society
for Medical Decision-Making and also served as consultant to the World
Health Organization. At the Institute of Medicine, he has chaired and
served on a number of panels dealing with health policy issues, ranging
from AIDS to new medical technology. He also served as a member of the
Public Health Council of Massachusetts (1976-1979), as Chairman of the
Health Care Technology Study Section of the National Center for Health
Services Research (1982-1985), and as President of the Association of
Schools of Public Health (1995-1996).
Dr. Fineberg is co-author of the books Clinical Decision Analysis,
Innovators in Physician Education, and The Epidemic that Never Was, an
analysis of the controversial federal immunization program against
swine flu in 1976. He has co-edited several books on such diverse
topics as AIDS prevention, vaccine safety, and understanding risk in
society. He has also authored numerous articles published in
professional journals. Dr. Fineberg is the recipient of several
honorary degrees and the Joseph W. Mountin Prize from the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control. He earned his Bachelor's and doctoral degrees from
Harvard University.
Chairman Baird. I think you are right on the money. That is
excellent. Thank you very much.
Dr. Goodman.
STATEMENT OF DR. ALLAN E. GOODMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INSTITUTE
OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, NEW YORK, NY
Dr. Goodman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Ehlers, and the Committee. We administer your Fulbright Program
on behalf of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at
the State Department, and I know Harriet Fulbright will be
absolutely delighted when I tell her you watched the video 65
times.
Since our founding in 1919, the institute has done a census
of international students in the United States and Americans
going abroad. In the last half century there have been just two
periods of decline; one in the early 1970s as a result of
global recession and upheaval in Iran, and the second period in
the wake of 9/11. As I highlight in my testimony, that period
of decline is now over.
Overall last year international students in America rose by
three percent, new enrollments in our graduate and
undergraduate programs increased by 10 percent, and in the
science and engineering fields new enrollments increased by 16
percent.
Turning the corner took the hard work of everybody
represented at this table and in this body and in the Senate.
We were fortunate to have a very important tone set at the top
by the President, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland
Security, the head of the consular service, public diplomacy,
and the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural
Affairs. I think we are the only government in the world where
so many top officials said in the wake of 9/11, we welcome
international students.
Mr. Edson talked about the heroic effort on behalf of
increasing consular services. The Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs also made tremendous effort to get the word
out through Study Abroad, through Education USA offices around
the world, and to provide free advice so that students could
access both the new procedures and opportunities for study
here. International student advisors and all the major campuses
reached out to international students, helped them with their,
both application and visa process, and a series of very
strategic delegations were conducted by university and college
presidents by the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Education to key-sending countries to make the word clear that
America really welcomes its international students. During
international ed week U.S. ambassadors in the key-sending
countries also spoke out and got a very important message
across; we welcome international students.
The market for international students and scholars is very
sensitive to misperception abroad and very sensitive to
mistreatment at home. In my statement and recommendations I
focused heavily on the Department of Homeland Security and the
treatment that international students and scholars receive at
our borders. As you said, Mr. Chairman, one anecdote circulates
rapidly and widely and tarnishes an entire image.
I also had a personal experience with the Department of
Homeland Security returning from Saudi Arabia a few months ago.
I was inspected at the border, and the first thing I was told
was that Americans shouldn't go to Saudi Arabia. The second
thing I was asked was what was my business there, and I
mentioned international educational exchange and Fulbright, and
the officer was skeptical that America should support
international students coming here. Then he noticed in my
passport that I had been to Iran twice, and I said, no,
actually I have been to Iraq twice to visit the Unites States
ambassador and to help with the starting of the Fulbright
Program for Iraqis to come here. For the next 15 minutes he
turned every single page of my passport. The sweat started
rolling down my sides, and I could imagine how an international
student or scholar would feel just asked a series of questions
or giving an opinion.
We have been training foreign service officers at the
Foreign Service Institute since 9/11 on the value of
international students and scholars to America. We have a
similar proposal at no cost to the Government to do that
training for the Department of Homeland Security, and we
believe if we could do that, and they would accept the
training, they would understand and appreciate as this
committee does and as our consulars do, that international
students and scholars are the most closely vetted and screened
and monitored group of any coming to the United States and are
of, as my fellow witnesses all highlight, inestimable benefit
to our progress in science and technology and also our
commerce, something that Homeland Security is also designed to
protect.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goodman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allan E. Goodman
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify at today's hearing on the subject of visas for
foreign students and scholars. My name is Allan Goodman and I am the
President and CEO of the Institute of International Education (IIE).
Thanks to the work of many U.S. Government officials and university
leaders and their international student advisors, there is good news to
report. Overall international student enrollments in U.S. colleges and
universities increased in the 2006/2007 academic year by over three
percent from the previous year, ending several years of decline in the
wake of 9/11. New enrollment figures rose by 10 percent in all fields
and by 16 percent for international graduate students in science and
engineering. In a country that produces more undergraduates with
degrees in the visual and performing arts than in engineering and
science, our future progress depends on these trends continuing and
there are good prospects that they will.
The Institute follows these developments closely. Founded in 1919,
IIE is among the world's largest and most experienced international
education and training organizations. Our mission is to promote closer
educational relations between the people of the United States and those
of other countries, strengthen and link institutions of higher learning
globally, build leadership skills and enhance the capacity of
individuals and organizations to address local and global challenges,
and rescue scholars--many of whom are in the science and math fields.
While we are perhaps best known for administering the flagship
Fulbright program on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, we also
administer the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship Program and
the National Security Education Program on behalf of the Department of
State and the Department of Defense respectively, as well as more than
200 other education or exchange programs sponsored by organizations,
corporations and foundations. All in all, more than 18,000 men and
women from 175 nations participate in IIE programs each year.
Applications this year are at record levels in all these programs.
In addition to administering programs, IIE identifies emerging
trends in international academic mobility through its Open Doors
report. This report is supported by the Department of State and
released annually during International Education Week in November.
Through ``Open Doors'' data which we have been collecting since our
founding year, we can analyze the changes in flows of international
students to the U.S. and U.S. students abroad, and help policy-makers
address the factors affecting those shifts in numbers, destinations,
and fields of study.
The Benefits of Welcoming International Students to the U.S.
You have asked me to articulate the benefits to U.S. scientific
enterprise and to the U.S. more broadly in welcoming foreign students
and scholars. But let me start with a quick overview of all
international students studying in the U.S. because I think the facts
are compelling. In academic year 2006/07, 582,984 international
students studied in the United States, up 3.2 percent from the prior
year and up 10 percent in terms of new students entering their U.S.
campus for the first time in fall 2006. These students contributed
$14.5 billion to the U.S. economy through their expenditures on tuition
and living expenses. In fact, the U.S. Department of Commerce ranks
international education as the U.S.'s 5th largest service sector
export.
But these students don't just benefit our national economy. Their
presence diversifies our campuses--particularly important since only
one percent of American students studied abroad in the past year and
yet will have careers that require global perspectives. International
students help Americans gain a critical understanding of other cultures
and languages such as Arabic, Korean and Farsi. They help to develop
long lasting relationships between the U.S. and other nations--some
notable examples of exchange students who studied in the U.S. are
former Prime Minister Tony Blair, former UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Having tomorrow's leaders
live and learn in the U.S. assists our long-term foreign policy goals
and is indeed one of this country's strongest diplomatic assets.
It is important to note that these international students study at
accredited institutions of all types--whether they are studying at
community college, specialized institutions, or are working toward a
Baccalaureate, Master or Doctoral degree. They also study in all
regions. Twenty three percent of these students (over 132,000) study in
the Pacific Northwest, Mr. Chairman, while 22 percent (over 126,000)
study in the Midwest region from which the Ranking Minority Member
hails.
The Benefit of International Students to the U.S. Scientific Enterprise
The impact of international students and scholars on U.S.
scientific enterprise is quite significant. Over 35 percent of all
international students in the U.S. study in science or engineering-
related fields. American campuses and graduate departments increasingly
rely on international students to provide valued research or assistance
in teaching. Today, more than one-third of U.S. engineering and
computer science faculty are foreign-born, many of whom came to the
U.S. first as an international student. Nearly 50 percent of the U.S.
doctorates awarded in engineering and computer science go to
international students and many foreign students are serving as
teaching or research assistants especially in Science and Technology
graduate departments to which American students are simply not
applying. These students and scholars further contribute through patent
applications and innovation.
And there is a further ripple effect--more than 50 percent of Ph.D.
engineers working in the U.S. are foreign born. 45 percent of math and
computer scientists, as well as life scientists and physicists working
in the U.S. are foreign-born. More than one-third of Nobel Laureates
from the United States are immigrants. Over 60 percent of finalists in
the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search, which are the top high school
science students in America, were the children of immigrants with 20
percent of those parents coming to the U.S. as international students.
Because international students and scholars bring so many benefits
to U.S. scientific research, we must pay close attention to the impact
our immigration and visa issuance policies have. The new policies and
procedures put in place after 9/11 did have a chilling effect and we
did see the number of students coming here drop, if even only by one to
two percentage points. Those numbers were magnified by the stories
students and scholars told about visa waiting time, denials, and
hostile treatment at our ports of entry and grew into a virtually
worldwide perception that international students were no longer welcome
in America. The U.S. Foreign Service and the higher education community
responded vigorously to correct that misperception and all of us will
have to continue to be proactive in assuring the international
community that America has found a way to secure our borders and still
promote international educational exchange. The Fulbright International
Science and Technology Fellowships, launched by the State Department in
2006, sent an important signal to outstanding graduate students around
the world that the U.S. welcomes these talented individuals and offers
them unparalleled opportunities to advance their careers and contribute
to scientific research.
The Institute of International Education: Promoting the Exchange of
People and Ideas
As I mentioned earlier, the mission of the Institute of
International Education is to promote, foster, and support the exchange
of people and ideas. The Institute was founded in the wake of World War
I under the premise that there could be no lasting peace without
greater understanding between nations--and that international
educational exchange formed the strongest basis for fostering such
understanding.
The Institute was then, and is now, a catalyst for educational
exchange. It serves as a central point of contact and source of
information both for U.S. higher education and for foreign nations
interested in establishing educational relations with the United
States. In fact, it was IIE's President that persuaded the government
to create non-immigrant student visas, bypassing post-war quotas set in
the Immigration Act of 1921.
Today, the programs under our stewardship continue to educate
future leaders from the United States and around the world but also
work to find new ways to reach out to those countries and regions that
are least understood by Americans, have some of the lowest exchange
numbers and are suffering some of the most entrenched and complex
challenges. Our work now encompasses every region of the world and
nearly every country. We have a network of offices worldwide and six
regional centers in the United States to encourage and facilitate
robust exchange.
You have asked how we work with both the university community and
the Federal Government in promoting exchange. We work extraordinarily
closely with both.
A Resource for Institutions and Students Alike
The Institute is a resource for domestic and international academic
communities. The IIENetwork serves colleges, universities, and
international exchange agencies worldwide and offers its 900 member
institutions a thriving online community (www.iienetwork.org), an
electronic newsletter, and comprehensive print and electronic
directories including www.StudyAbroadFunding.org and
www.FundingUSStudy.org, Intensive English USA and the heavily used
IIEPassport.org study aboard website and publications. Our IIENetwork
also conducts seminars and workshops in the U.S. and overseas,
including our annual IIE Best Practices Conference in the U.S. and
workshops such as ``Internationalizing Your Campus: Global Resources
for Local Universities.'' IIE honors the most outstanding initiatives
that are being conducted by member colleges and universities with the
Andrew Heiskell Awards for Innovation in International Education. More
than 50 such outstanding programs were recognized in the past seven
years, including one for faculty exchanges at Congressman Carnahan's
alma mater.
IIE helps international students gain information on studying in
America, assists educators in recruiting international students and
establishing linkages with overseas partners. Our signature
``IIEPassport'' website and books are a resource for both students and
advisers, offering listings of over 7,000 study abroad programs
worldwide, and advice on how to select the right program for each
student's needs, and how to fund financial support as well. The
Institute also coordinates events on the ground connecting students and
parents to higher education representatives. For instance, IIE
organized eleven U.S. Higher Education Fairs throughout Asia with more
than 100 U.S. campus officials on-site to present objective and timely
information to more than 10,000 students and parents in countries such
as Indonesia, India, Japan, Thailand and Vietnam.
In 2006, the Department of State selected the Institute to manage
the global Regional Educational Advising Coordinators (REAC) program on
behalf of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The ten REACs
support 450 EducationUSA advising centers around the world, providing
leadership and expertise to educational information centers and U.S.
embassies and serving as a liaison between ECA staff in Washington and
the advising centers overseas. There is significant outreach that goes
on under the REAC program. Just one example is IIE's Southeast Asian
regional center in Bangkok which ran workshops with the American
University Alumni Association (AUA) to help English teachers from
Thailand and neighboring countries prepare their students for the new
TOEFL exam and other U.S. standardized tests.
IIE's Work With the Federal Government
Our relationship, cooperative agreements, and work with the Federal
Government are longstanding. We are honored to have administered the
flagship Fulbright program on behalf of the U.S. Government since the
program's inception in 1946. This includes the U.S. and foreign student
and scholar programs, as well as the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship
Program.
We also administer the Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship
Program and the National Security Education Program (NSEP) on behalf of
the Department of State and Department of Defense respectively. The
Gilman program helps American students with high financial need to
study abroad in non-traditional destinations and NSEP helps U.S.
undergraduate and graduate students study critical language and then
``pay-back'' through up to a year of service in one of the federal
agencies related to our national security, or in an educational
organization if no appropriate position exists in the relevant federal
agencies. The Humphrey program brings accomplished professionals from
designated countries to the U.S. at a midpoint in their careers for one
year of study and related professional experiences. They return home to
leadership positions in public service fields, bringing a deep
appreciation of American values and ways of doing business. It is
important to know that each and every one of these programs are
experiencing record numbers of applications. The thirst for
international study and training continues to grow, and the study
abroad student population is more diverse than ever before in our
history.
In addition to supporting and encouraging student study abroad, IIE
has a long tradition of rescuing scholars who are threatened with
persecution or death due to their scholarly pursuits. The Institute has
rescued thousands of students and scholars beginning with those caught
in the crossfire of the Bolshevik Revolution. That work continued
throughout the 20th Century as IIE rescued persecuted scholars fleeing
Europe in WWII and during the Hungarian Revolution, and resettled them
on U.S. campuses. In 2002, these efforts were formalized in the Scholar
Rescue Fund, a permanent endowment supported by both private and public
funds which allows for more rapid response in times of crisis.
Through the Scholar Rescue Fund, scholars are temporarily resettled
at a host university anywhere in the world where they can resume their
work guest lecturing, teaching, researching and writing. The host
university shares in the expenses of supporting a scholar and has the
benefit of their participation in the university community. I mention
the Fund because often these scholars have science or engineering
degrees. For example, today in the U.S., Rice University is hosting a
scholar from Belarus who teaches Biomedical Optics and Thermal Physics,
the University of Florida is home to a Thermal Hydraulics professor
from Iraq, Kent State hosts a Computer and Electrical Engineering
scholar also from Iraq, the University of Oklahoma is temporarily home
to an Iraqi professor of Geology and Micropaleontology. The U.S.
Government supports not only the global work of the Fund but also a
more specific mission to rescue Iraqi scholars currently under threat.
The Visa Mantis Process and an Improved Flow of International Students
The number of international students enrolled in colleges and
universities in the United States increased by 3.2 percent to a total
of 582,984 in the 2006/07 academic year. This is the first significant
increase in total international student enrollments since the numbers
began declining after 9/11. This past year saw an even bigger jump in
the number of ``new'' enrollments--that is students who were enrolled
at a college or university for the first time in the fall of 2006,
which rose 10 percent from the previous year--this is a marked
increase.
I took the opportunity to take a closer look at the numbers of
international students from the alma maters of Members of the
Subcommittee. For the 2006/2007 school year, all the numbers are up.
For example, the University of Wyoming hosted 478 international
students--an increase of 8.6 percent over the previous year and the
University of California at Berkeley hosted 3,167 international
students, an 18 percent increase.
An examination of first time foreign students in graduate science
and engineering programs also shows an increase. According to the
results of a National Science Foundation (NSF) survey released just
last week enrollment of first-time, full-time foreign graduate students
on temporary visas studying science and engineering (S&E) grew by 16
percent in 2006, following a four percent increase in 2005. These
increases reflect a reversal of the declines in enrollments of new
foreign S&E graduate students in the wake of September 11th, which had
declined by 19 percent between 2001 and 2004. The National Science
Foundation credits a variety of factors for the increases including
improvements in the quality and attractiveness of science and
engineering education in other countries as well as application and
approval rates for student visas.
However, according to NSF, despite the recent increases, both
first-time, full-time and total enrollments in 2006 for foreign S&E
graduate students are still somewhat below the levels earlier in the
decade. Foreign students represent 29 percent of all science and
engineering graduate students--this is down from 31 percent in 2003.
These numbers from the National Science Foundation's Science Resources
Statistics division closely parallel IIE's Open Doors findings.
The turnaround and improvement achieved in the last few years
reflect substantial progress by the Department of State to make the
visa process more predictable for students and scholars. The change in
the Visa Mantis process announced in February of 2005 and a redoubling
of efforts by the Department of State and its Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs to attract international students to U.S. campuses was
instrumental in helping to achieve this change in the enrollment
numbers. They launched a consistent and multi-pronged push to make the
visa process more predictable for students and scholars and to attract
or re-attract international students. This has included efforts such as
the first U.S. University Presidents Summit on International Education
that brought together 123 presidents or chancellors. It was there that
Secretary Rice announced; ``America's mission in this new century must
be to welcome more foreign students to our nation and send more of our
citizens abroad to study. To be successful, our government and our
universities must forge a new partnership for education exchange, a
partnership that rest on new thinking and action.'' This was a very
important tone to set from the top and was buttressed by outreach
conducted together by university presidents or chancellors along with
high-ranking members of the State Department to critical regions of the
world.
In addition, the Department placed a high priority on increasing
consular personnel--adding 570 new consular officers since September
2001, to expedite the visa process. They were also quick to accept our
offer to brief all consular officers undergoing training at FSI on the
concerns that we consistently heard from international students and
officials at American host campuses, as well as the importance of
international education to the U.S. economy, its impact on national
security, and progress in the STEM fields.
The extent of improvement has been substantial and is due not only
to efforts by the State Department but also by the increased outreach
undertaken by American college and university officials to reassure
international students and their parents that they are welcome on
America's campuses. We know from our Open Doors survey of higher
education institutions enrolling international students that 60 percent
of responding institutions have taken special steps to ensure that the
number of international students on their campuses does not decline.
And that special steps included new international programs or
collaborations (33 percent), as well as new staff or additional staff
time devoted to international recruitment (26 percent), new funding for
international recruitment trips (23 percent), and new funding for
marketing and promotion of programs (21 percent). Institutions that
devoted more resources for international student recruitment trips seem
to have concentrated mainly on Asia. Of course, we can always all do
more and must ensure that we keep up our efforts to attract the world's
brightest students to U.S. campuses. But it is clear that there is
significant interest and effort among institutions of higher learning
to attract, keep and nurture foreign students.
What More Needs to Be Done?
We can all imagine how circumstances might impact international
students coming to the United States. Many of us have helped our own
children negotiate entering college and understand that it can be a
time of great anticipation and excitement but also nervousness and
trepidation for young people. Mr. Chairman, you along with your
colleagues, the Ranking Member Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Bartlett and Mr.
Lipinski, can better understand the challenges faced by any university
student leaving home for the first time given your backgrounds as a
professors. But, imagine the incredible fortitude, drive and courage to
leave your home country, fly to the United States, navigate the non-
immigrant visa review and border entry processes and enter an
institution of higher learning here in America. We owe it to these
students and to their parents to make the process as accessible,
predictable, and respectful as we can while also protecting our
national security and insuring that only legitimate students are
granted the privilege to study in the United States.
The most immediate need now is to better train Department of
Homeland Security border inspectors. All too often we hear of
unpleasant and extremely harassing treatment of incoming students and
scholars, particularly of those who come from the Middle East or whose
name identifies them as an adherent of Islam. Sometimes the inspector
does not appear to understand the process by which international
students are admitted to our colleges and universities, and end up
questioning the student about issues that have already been decided by
the visa-granting officer back in the home country. This treatment can
be particularly intimidating for students who may be traveling abroad
for the very first time and who may be confused of what is being asked
of them. Some students hail from countries or cultures where figures of
authority are never questioned or talked to--even if trying to clarify
a request or order. And, of course, there are cultural or religious
issues to be bridged. For instance, some Muslim women are not allowed
to talk to men outside their family. Some cultures do not encourage
direct eye contact with strangers, and hence the student may appear
evasive or non-forthcoming in responding.
We have offered to provide similar training to Homeland Security
border officials, at no cost to DHS, as we now do routinely for newly
trained consular officers at the Foreign Service Institute, and are
awaiting DHS approval.
Attached to my statement is a PowerPoint we have already provided
to Department of Homeland Security to use in their computer based
training.
IIE and our network of 900 colleges and universities is deeply
committed to sustaining and expanding the flows of talented
international students in the science and technology (S&T) fields, who
continue to see America as the destination of choice for their overseas
training. We also are working hard to expand opportunities for
Americans from all backgrounds and in all fields, particularly the
challenging fields of S&T, to study abroad at some point in their
academic career and to gain the international perspectives and global
experience that will be vital to their success and to our country's
competitiveness, in the 21st century. Through the Global Engineering
Education Exchange, a consortium of 32 U.S. engineering schools and
over 50 outside the U.S. is helping several hundred engineering
students each year study outside their country on a tuition-swap basis,
and several other programs that IIE has the honor to administer also
provide opportunities for young American scientists and engineers to
study and do research abroad.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
interest in international exchange and for inviting me to testify
today. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. I also
look forward to the day when we will read in our headlines that cancer
has been cured or a vaccine developed to prevent HIV. America's open
academic doors may already have brought the international graduate
student or researcher here who will hasten the day when that good news
will be possible.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Biography for Allan E. Goodman
Dr. Goodman is the sixth President of IIE, the leading not-for-
profit organization in the field of international educational exchange
and development training. IIE administers the Fulbright program,
sponsored by the United States Department of State, and 200 other
corporate, government and privately-sponsored programs.
Previously, he was Executive Dean of the School of Foreign Service
and Professor at Georgetown University. He is the author of books on
international affairs published by Harvard, Princeton and Yale
University Presses and Diversity in Governance, published by the
American Council on Education. Dr. Goodman also served as Presidential
Briefing Coordinator for the Director of Central Intelligence and as
Special Assistant to the Director of the National Foreign Assessment
Center in the Carter Administration. He was the first American
professor to lecture at the Foreign Affairs College of Beijing. Dr.
Goodman also helped create the first U.S. academic exchange program
with the Moscow Diplomatic Academy for the Association of Professional
Schools of International Affairs and developed the diplomatic training
program of the Foreign Ministry of Vietnam. Dr. Goodman has also served
as a consultant to Ford Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson National
Fellowship Foundation, the United States Information Agency, and IBM.
He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Goodman has a
Ph.D. in Government from Harvard, an M.P.A. from the John F. Kennedy
School of Government and a B.S. from Northwestern University. Dr.
Goodman also holds an honorary doctorate from Toyota University. He has
been awarded honorary doctor of laws from Mount Ida and Ramapo Colleges
and an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree from the State
University of New York to recognize his work in rescuing threatened
scholars, and he has received awards from Georgetown, Johns Hopkins,
and Tufts universities. Dr. Goodman was awarded the title ``Chevalier''
of the French Legion of Honour on April 23, 2007.
STATEMENT OF MS. CATHERYN COTTEN, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
OFFICE, DUKE UNIVERSITY
Ms. Cotten. Good afternoon, Chairman Baird, and Ranking
Member Ehlers, and the Subcommittee Members. I really
appreciate the opportunity to be here today and speak with you
on behalf of Duke University, the American Council on
Education, and the Association of American Universities.
Duke University Medical Center and Health System is a major
teaching and research facility and a teaching hospital. We have
approximately 1,800 international students, about 1,000
scholars, most of whom are involved in the sciences, although
we do have our smattering of other areas as well. We use the F-
1 visa, the J-1, the H-1B, the O-1, the TN, even the occasional
R-1 theology person, to come to Duke and do research and study
and teach.
We cannot speak for all of the universities in the U.S.,
but we can certainly say that our issues are similar to other
issues of universities and research facilities around the
country.
We have been asked to respond to three questions. We would
refer you to our written testimony for the first two, and we
will focus on the third, which has to do with the
recommendations we would have for some changes that could be
done now and that would not necessarily require statutory
changes.
We have already spoken among this group about stateside
visa extensions and how important that would be to our people.
We cannot overemphasize the fear that people have in returning
home or outside the U.S. to get a new visa stamp. The first
experience is often a very difficult one. Even though it turns
out fine in the end, it is very painful as far as the process
goes, often requires travel from some distance to the local
consular post. We have been very pleased with the advances that
have been made in the last few years in giving F-1 and J-1
students the opportunity to have earlier appointments, in
giving consular officers the permission to give them the
benefit of the doubt to come into the country in terms of their
non-immigrant intent. We would like to look a little more at
that area as well.
But once they arrive here, they are very frightened to go
back. They are afraid that this time they won't get the visa
stamp, and so the discussion that we have had among the
panelists here regarding stateside processing is one that would
be of tremendous help to all of our international students and
scholars.
In addition, many of our researchers and our faculty, when
they travel as part of the work that they do for us, need to
travel short-term. They go to a conference that is a three-day
or a four-day conference. They really can't afford to spend
three weeks. Even though they get expedited processing, it
could take two or three weeks to get a visa to come back. And
so they are choosing not to go to these important conferences,
not to represent our institutions at these important meetings
because of the fear of either taking too long to get back or
not being able to come back at all.
We know that stateside visa processing is possible. It has
been done before, and we especially applaud the Department of
State's efforts recently to waive the interviews for visa
extensions and to go to the online filing system, which means
that not only can you just print it out, but you can truly
press a submit button and file on line and have information go
where it needs to go.
With this kind of technology, there really is no point in
forcing the body to be outside the country to get the visa
stamp issued, and so we would encourage any efforts in the
direction of stateside processing for visa extensions.
And in conjunction with that is the non-immigrant intent
issue and that discussion. It is an important law, but it is an
old one. Non-immigrant intent is the assumption that anyone
applying is an intending immigrant, and they must prove
otherwise. With our F-1 and J-1 students and scholars they have
already shown that they are worthy of coming to the U.S., or
they wouldn't be getting the documents that we have given them.
They will have gone through security clearances before they get
their visa stamps. It is very difficult for them, for any
student coming into an undergraduate or graduate program to
swear where they will be in the next three or four or five
years. Our own domestic students don't know that. Certainly the
international students don't.
And the issue of non-immigrant intent is one that we could
deal with in terms of policy and looking at some bright-line
areas to define. For example, have these people filed for
immigrant visas, have they filed labor certs, has anyone done
anything to get them green cards? If not, can we not simply
assume, barring any other major indications, that they have
non-immigrant intent? We could do that without changing the
law, although we would not be adverse to some legislative
changes as well.
Another area that has caused some difficulty among the
educational community and the research community is the
exchange visitor program professor and research scholar
category. The J-1 Program is one of the finest examples of
international exchange that this country has ever produced, and
it has been going on for over 50 years. We have brought many
thousands of international students and scholars in and out of
the U.S. on that program.
In particular, the professor and research scholar category
is used by our educational institutions as the work-horse visa
to move people in and out of the country and to move them
around the country so that they can do all of the visiting
lectures, the guest professorships, the collaborative research.
For reasons that we don't understand, the Exchange Visitor
Program has given the professor researcher category a five-year
limit, which we applaud, but only if that five years is
continuous and uninterrupted. If we bring someone in to teach
for one year, to do research for one year, then that person is
barred from returning in the J category, professor researcher,
for two years. If they come for three weeks, two days, four
hours, and they come in the professor researcher category, and
they end that activity and go home, they are barred for two
years from returning, not just to our institution but to any
educational institution in America.
We don't understand the philosophy behind this, and we
would welcome the opportunity to have a more in-depth
discussion of that particular characteristic of the J Program.
We would also like to talk about the F-1 student
employment. We understand that Department of Homeland Security
is considering giving F-1 students optional practical training,
not for 12 months, which is true now, but for up to 29 months,
and we would certainly encourage that, to give particularly our
post-doctoral students the opportunity to work longer in the
U.S. in their post-doctoral training after they graduate.
One of the difficulties, though, with the OPT is that it
must be adjudicated by Homeland Security unlike the other
student working options and the scholar working opinions which
we manage on the campus. This one in particular requires an
adjudication. It is something that we could handle on the
campuses through SEVIS, through a reporting system. We are
doing that now with numbers of other kinds of work
authorizations, and we could do this as well.
We had students at Duke affected last year because of the
July green card situation, which some of you may have heard of.
Homeland Security got many hundreds of thousands of
applications for green cards, and our students were filing
their OPT work permissions after graduation or before
graduation in anticipation of working for the summer. Those
applications sat in storage facilities in Homeland Security for
months. They were not only not adjudicated, they were not
opened. The checks were not cashed. It was as if they did not
exist. There is a regulation in Homeland Security that if they
take more than 90 days to issue a work permission, a person
should be able to walk into a local office and get interim work
permission. Homeland Security announced that it had elected not
to follow its regulation in that regard. We had numbers of
students who lost jobs, who had filed months in advance. These
were not students who waited until the last minute. They had
filed properly, and they lost jobs because they could not say
to an employer when they would be able to start, couldn't even
track their application because it had never been opened and a
number assigned to it to track.
So we would encourage Homeland Security to involve the
educational programs and the institutions more, not in the
adjudication of but merely approval of optional practical
training.
Chairman Baird. Ms. Cotten, I am going to ask you to wrap
up here. Your testimony is absolutely valuable and the comments
I read are, I think, spot on, but we are, I want to make sure
there is time for give and take here.
Ms. Cotten. I will be happy to close there. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cotten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catheryn Cotten
Good Afternoon, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
Subcommittee Members. My name is Catheryn Cotten and I am Director of
the International Office for both Duke University and Duke Medical
Center and Health System. I appreciate the opportunity to provide
testimony today on behalf of Duke, the American Council on Education
and the Association of American Universities.
Before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to say a few words
about Duke University and its medical and health enterprises. Duke
University, Medical Center, and Health System comprise a major teaching
and research university and teaching hospital. We grant undergraduate,
graduate, and professional degrees and offer a multitude of organized,
formal, and informal educational opportunities. Many of these lead to
certification or other professional or vocational recognition. We
operate one of the Nation's leading medical research facilities and
teaching hospitals. Our university and medical facilities host numerous
international students, scholars, patients, and visitors as a normal
part of our daily operations.
We work cooperatively with both government research facilities and
the research and development branches of businesses involved in
science, medicine, technology, engineering, computing, mathematics,
social sciences, and humanities. These relationships allow us to offer
a broad range of experiences and opportunities to international
faculty, research scholars, students, and international visitors. We
have approximately 1,800 international students, most in F-1 or J-1
student status, who may file for student-connected work permission or
other benefits.
We use the J-1 Exchange Visitor Program and H-1B, O-1, and TN, to
sponsor approximately 1,000 international faculty, research scholars,
and persons with specialized knowledge and skills to teach, conduct
research and share their expertise.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony. While we cannot
speak for all educational institutions, we know that other colleges,
universities, and research institutions share similar issues and
concerns regarding opportunities for international students and
scholars.
We have been asked to respond to three questions:
1. How do foreign students and scholars contribute to the science and
engineering enterprise at your university?
Statistical reports abound regarding the numbers and percentages of
international students and scholars in our nation's educational
institutions and research facilities and the contributions that they
make. Of the 2,800 international students and scholars at Duke, most
are in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
Duke is committed to interdisciplinary education and research to
maximize and multiply the effective development of new technologies.
Examples of such integration include: environmental science, resource
management, environmental law, and public policy; computer applications
in genomics or cardiology and related health statistics and
demographics; biomedical engineering and new therapy developments
leading to targeted drug delivery systems or quicker transitions of new
therapies from ``bench to bedside.''
The very best U.S. and international students and scholars compete
for admission to our degree programs and acceptance into our research
projects. They bring not only superior knowledge, skills, and
abilities, as do their U.S. colleagues, but they also offer new
perspectives on ways of using disparate technologies to solve problems
and identify new avenues of research.
2. How have visa delays or denials affected the ability of your
university to recruit and retain top science and engineering students
from abroad? How have they affected your ability to attract scholars
for short-term appointments and research collaborations? To what extent
has this process improved in the last few years? What difficulties
remain? Did the significant problems for foreign students and scholars
in the early years after 9/11 lead to long-term consequences for your
university?
We cannot know all that we have lost, the successes that might have
been. How many excellent students or scholars, hearing the visa
application horror stories from cousins, colleagues, and classmates,
made the decision not to attempt to come to the U.S.? How many, while
waiting to get a U.S. visa, gave up and took their second or third
choice offer in another country?
In the years immediately after 9/11, the U.S. created barriers for
students and scholars that only the most dedicated schools, students,
and scholars were able to cross. We had to defer admission for students
who could not arrive on time, and we lost some students completely as
they saw themselves falling behind their colleagues professionally
because of visa delays or denials. Research projects were delayed or
harmed because key researchers could not arrive on time or could not
come at all. Much remains to be done, but in recent years we have seen
improvements:
<bullet> THEN mandatory interviews and wait times for visas at
embassies and consulates caused serious delays. NOW the
Department of State (DOS) policy of priority interviews for F-1
students and J-1 students and scholars sends a positive message
and produces positive results. We are pleased and proud to be
able to tell our students and scholars that our university
wants them, that the U.S. wants them, and that the DOS, their
``first contact point,'' is showing that in meaningful ways.
<bullet> THEN security background checks delayed people for
many months, often with no avenues for resolution and ``no end
in sight'' for the review period. NOW the process has become
more regularized, communications among the various agencies has
improved, processing times have become shorter and more
predictable, and DOS has developed processes for investigating
and resolving most serious delays. Even so, we still must wait
at least three months before inquiring about a security check
that seems to be stuck in the system.
<bullet> THEN the Student and Exchange Visitor Information
System (SEVIS) was developed in haste after 9/11, ignoring or
omitting many of the positive operational elements that had
been planned for a more organized roll out. The system was
rigid and did not reflect the regulations under which schools
and exchange programs were required to operate. The nascent
database and data sharing capabilities created delays and
confusion, produced false or conflicting data, resulted in
denials of proper benefits, and visited hardships on our
students and scholars. NOW the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is and has been working diligently with the educational
community to add and upgrade SEVIS functionality.
Unfortunately, we still find that in certain areas the software
conflicts with the regulations, that students and scholars have
benefits delayed or denied, and that data fails to move swiftly
or accurately among databases. On the positive side, the
information in the current version of SEVIS seems to be more
available to DOS consular officers and DHS port officers. Those
officers seem more confident about relying on the information
in SEVIS to admit students and scholars into the U.S. But we
still see a lag in functionality in SEVIS for the J-1 program.
We understand that DHS is planning a total revision of SEVIS.
We welcome that endeavor and hope to be an active and involved
part of the process.
3. Do you have recommendations for changes or improvements to current
policies that would further improve the flow of students and scholars
without compromising national security? How do you communicate your
concerns and recommendations to the relevant federal agencies and how
responsive are the agencies?
Reviewing the past and present informs us. But moving toward future
improvements with a willingness to think differently empowers us to
bring the best of the best to the U.S. and to build the strong and
lasting international relationships that contribute fundamentally to
our national security. In response to this question, we have identified
areas that continue to frustrate international exchange and offer
different ways of addressing issues of concern. We have placed the most
important items first in each section.
STATESIDE VISA EXTENSION OR ISSUANCE
Having to apply for visas abroad, lengthy security clearances, and
the fear of rejection or delays prevent critical and important
exchanges. Individuals are afraid to attend meetings or conferences or
to visit family at home. A few years ago, a Duke Ph.D. student went
home to pick up her parents so they could attend her graduation. When
she tried to return to the U.S., she was denied the student visa she
needed to return and defend her dissertation and graduate. Also, a Duke
researcher who attended a conference overseas was ``trapped'' outside
the U.S. for months waiting for a security clearance.
The recent DHS regulations regarding the REAL ID Act create
additional problems by making one of the documents used to establish
identity an ``unexpired foreign passport with a valid, unexpired U.S.
visa affixed accompanied by the approved I-94 form documenting the
applicant's most recent admittance into the United States.'' A review
of the other documents that could be used to show identity indicate
that, in most cases, our international students and scholars would not
have access to alternate documents and would be forced to use the
passport with a valid visa stamp. Coordinating travel to get visa
stamps, which can only be obtained abroad, against driver's license,
passport, and I-94 expirations (all with possible different dates) will
become a travel and consular post nightmare.
Policy/Practice Solutions--What could be done now
The most useful change would be allowing stateside visa
applications, security clearances, and granting of visas before people
leave the U.S. DHS and DOS have the authority to make stateside
processing possible. Indeed, stateside processing used to be available
for the H-1B visas. Our students and scholars would be willing to pay
appropriate fees to make this service available. An individual who
needs to attend a four-day meeting abroad would not have to spend an
extra three weeks outside the U.S. to get a visa stamp and worry for
those three weeks that it might not be granted.
With the availability of e-communications among U.S. departments,
agencies, law enforcement, and security entities, there is no reason to
force consular posts to process visa extensions rather than providing
that service stateside.
In addition, to the extent possible under the law, the Federal
Government should provide long-term visa stamps to students and
scholars so they are not forced to apply for new or extended visa
stamps so often. Such changes made to the F and J visas a few years ago
have been very useful. We need to build on that success.
NON-IMMIGRANT INTENT
F and J status require ``non-immigrant intent'' or proof of
intention to return home. The inability to show non-immigrant intent is
one of the most common reasons for visa delay or denial for F and J
students and scholars. Determination of intent requires consular
officials to engage in a kind of psychic mind reading. They must
speculate on the intent of the applicant and make a visa decision in
part on that speculation. Although DOS instructions in recent years
have allowed consular officers to give these students and scholars the
``benefit of the doubt,'' the unpredictability of this determination
makes students and scholars afraid to travel. If and when they receive
the first visa stamp and arrive in the U.S., their memories of the
worries and uncertainty of that process stay with them. Students may
remain in the U.S. for years, fearing that if they try to visit their
families they will not be able to return to the U.S. Scholars hesitate
to attend important international meetings and conferences, fearing
they will be stuck outside the U.S. for months or indefinitely. (Please
see Appendix 1 for further discussion of this point.)
Policy/Practice Solution--What could be done now
In order to alleviate this uncertainty for international students
and scholars, DOS could simply interpret immigrant intent differently
for F and J visas. Rather than asking consular officers to ``guess'' at
intent, DOS should set a simple standard. If F or J applicants have not
had labor certification or immigration petitions filed on their behalf
and have not filed an application for lawful permanent resident status,
that should be considered evidence of non-immigrant intent.
Some may argue that the ``exchange'' nature of the J Exchange
Visitor Program assumes and requires a strong intent to return to the
home country, and thus should be held to a strict standard. Again, if a
person has taken no formal, legal action toward legal permanent
residency status, that person has shown no immigrant intent. We should
also rethink the 20th century ideas of exchange in the 21st century.
When information can be shared globally and instantly electronically, J
exchange visitors may be more effective in sharing and carrying out the
purposes of the Exchange Visitor Program based on their access to
communications rather than their presence in a specified geographic
location.
Statutory Solution
Remove the non-immigrant intent language from the F visa, and
possibly from the J visa. The F change has been discussed for years.
ELIMINATE THE J-1 PROFESSOR-RESEARCHER CATEGORY ``BARS''
The DOS J-1 Exchange Visitor Program (EVP) has convoluted
regulations on ``bars'' to participation in the Professor/Research
Scholar (PRS) category that wreak havoc on teaching and research. For
colleges and universities, this is the most serious issue in the
Exchange Visitor Program. In brief, the PRS category has a five-year
participation limit if the person participates in the program
continuously for five years. However, if we bring a researcher to the
U.S. in the PRS category for a few months and that person returns to
the home university to continue collaborative research, he or she is
barred for two years from returning to the U.S. in the PRS category.
(There is another six-month/12-month bar operating within and around
the two-year bar, but that is more detail than is necessary for this
discussion.)
The bars completely disrupt critical collaborative research and
academic exchange. Important senior scholars or young and innovative
researchers might come to one university for a period of time, but
could not return later to another university until two years have
passed. Officials with the DOS Exchange Visitor Program explain this
bar as protecting the integrity of the EVP by preventing ``repeat''
visitors, which they seem to see as an abuse of the program. Repeat
visits, ongoing exchanges, and a free flow of talent is exactly what we
need. EVP officials also have argued that a professor should not be
permitted to teach a senior level course during one semester each year
as a J-1 exchange visitor. Instead, they say, the university should
invite a different person to teach that course each year, thus
increasing the number of people who can participate in exchange. Such a
philosophy ignores the basic concepts of academic teaching and research
and educational exchange. The number of people at the top of the field
in any discipline is limited. Professors cannot be used as
``interchangeable parts'' in senior level courses and research. Equally
important, having them engage in intermittent exchange generates and
multiplies exchange opportunities for others. By building strong
ongoing relationships, we create conduits for young students and
scholars, both U.S. and international, to travel between and among
institutions globally.
Policy/Practice Solution--What could be done now
DOS could simply change its regulations to remove the ``six-/12-
month'' and ``two-year'' bars. These bars are entirely a construct of
the DOS-EVP, which could be changed easily. The higher education
community has advocated strongly for such changes, but DOS-EVP
officials appear to believe that our arguments lack sufficient merit or
show a misunderstanding of the role of professors and research scholars
in the Exchange Visitor Program.
NEW HIGHER EDUCATION NON-IMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION
Currently there is no non-immigrant classification that meets the
special needs of higher education and research institutions. Teaching
and research activities are funded from multiple sources, have varying
duration, may or may not involve employment, and often involve multiple
sites. Teachers and researchers need quick and easy ways to navigate
these opportunities and to travel globally. The H-1B, while useful and
valuable to academe, is fundamentally an employment classification
controlled by a cumbersome petition process through DHS. It does not
permit multiple funding sources (private or public grants, home
country, home employer, etc.). The J-1 provides useful flexibility,
but, as described above, DOS has made the J-1 very difficult to use and
requires non-immigrant intent. This makes travel unreliable and risky.
Legislative Solution
Create a new non-immigrant classification with the following
characteristics:
<bullet> Is managed in SEVIS directly by the college,
university, or research facility, as is the J currently.
Institutions would be responsible for proper management. This
change would bring personal and study/research data into the
SEVIS database, thus contributing to national security and
making valuable information available to the government in a
form that could be easily ``mined.''
<bullet> Does not require non-immigrant intent. As already
mentioned, non-immigrant intent hampers our ability to conduct
research globally. We need to remove, not create, barriers to
travel.
<bullet> Can be funded from multiple sources without requiring
a ``prevailing wage'' or ``required wage'' only from the U.S.
employer. We do not suggest that these faculty and researchers
should not have adequate funding, but rather that they be
permitted to receive support from usual academic sources and at
usual academic rates.
<bullet> Does allow individuals to participate in various
academic activities with other institutions or organizations
with or without reimbursement of expenses or payment of
honoraria or other compensation. Professors and researchers
will often be asked to lecture or consult at other institutions
or may be offered the opportunity to write book chapters, edit
books, etc., for a fee. The host institution should be able to
authorize such activities as part of and appropriate to usual
academic appointments.
<bullet> Does permit long-term (five-10 years), continuous,
intermittent, or sporadic use without ``bars'' or similar
penalties. While the specific limits may require further
discussion, a restructured SEVIS should enable educational
institutions to manage participation through notices and
updates in SEVIS, rather than through lengthy petitions through
DHS.
GENERAL WORK PERMISSION AND EXTENDED OPTIONAL PRACTICAL TRAINING FOR F-
1 STUDENTS
F-1 and J-1 students are permitted variations in work permission
that have special rules and restrictions as to location (on or off
campus), hours (usually 20 hours per week during school and full-time
during vacations), and purpose (usually must be related to field of
study or for severe economic hardship).
Students need generalized work permission to participate in the
many service and enhancement opportunities that schools and businesses
make available to them. For example, Duke Engage (see Appendix 2)
provides opportunities for students to volunteer their services in
communities or engage in research or enrichment in the U.S. and abroad.
The inability to ``work'' causes unexpected problems. Example: An
international student volunteers to teach during a summer science
enrichment program for junior high school students. All volunteers are
given housing and a small stipend of $1,000 to offset living expenses.
All volunteers must go into the host school's employee system to
receive the housing and stipend and for insurance and liability
purposes. The student and school must complete an I-9, which the
international student cannot do, as he/she does not have work
permission. The valuable resource of this international student's
talent and love for science is lost to young U.S. citizens because this
student cannot ``work'' in the U.S.
F-1 students also need more Optional Practical Training (OPT) time
and they need for that time to be made available in usable increments.
A student can use OPT time either during the educational program or
after graduation. Motivated students who wish to undertake experiential
learning and research opportunities during their summer vacations can
use up most or all of their OPT, leaving little or no OPT time after
graduation. In addition, the current OPT adjudication mechanisms at DHS
can waste valuable OPT time by requiring that OPT be used in large
chunks or by making it impossible to end permission and reclaim unused
time.
In 2007, DHS took far more than 90 days to adjudicate summer OPT
requests. DHS is required by its own regulations to grant immediate
interim work permission if it takes longer than 90 days to adjudicate
an application. DHS refused to follow its own regulation, thus causing
students to lose jobs because they could not report to work on time.
Policy/Practice Solution--What could be done now
Give F-1 and J-1 students general work permission for 20 hours per
week while school is in session and full-time during breaks and
vacations. SEVIS provides a way to control and manage such permission
through its reporting mechanisms. As they do now with Curricular
Practical Training (CPT), schools could authorize and report other work
and issue documents that employers could use to verify employment
authorization.
Lengthen the period of OPT and make it easier to manage. DHS is
already working on revising the OPT rules to lengthen the period of OPT
from 12 to 29 months. We applaud and strongly encourage this change.
We also recommend that the OPT no longer be an adjudication action,
but rather an authorization by the school official properly reported
through SEVIS. Again, the mechanism already exists to do this for CPT.
SEVIS could easily incorporate OPT into this process. Handling the OPT
through SEVIS reporting would also provide more direct and accurate
information on the work in which students are engaged, thus improving
database information. We understand that DHS may depend upon the
additional income currently generated by the OPT adjudications (Form I-
765) to cover other non-OPT costs. This balancing of income against
quality and speed of service needs closer review.
WORK PERMISSION OPTION FOR F-2 DEPENDENTS
DHS should amend its regulations to allow F-2 dependents to apply
for and receive general work permission, as is now the case for the J-
2. Allowing dependents to work not only provides useful additional
income, but also provides a much greater benefit in giving the F-1
student and his/her family fuller participation in and understanding of
the American way of life.
Thank you Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and share some of my
experiences in shepherding international students and scholars through
the visa process. I appreciate your interest in this important issue
and welcome the opportunity to answer any of your questions.
APPENDIX 1
The announcement below shows the commitment of U.S. Duke Alumni and
of Duke University to the global exchange of students and scholars that
is essential to America's continued success. [Please see comments (in
italics) pertinent to the issues before this committee.]
Bruce and Martha Karsh to Give $20 Million to Support International
Students
The gift is the Karshes' second in three years to support financial
aid, bringing their total support for Duke students to $32 million.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
DURHAM, NC--Duke University trustee Bruce Karsh and his wife,
Martha, will give the school $20 million in permanent endowment to
support undergraduate students from other countries, President Richard
H. Brodhead announced Wednesday. This gift, which includes $15 million
for financial aid, is the largest donation devoted to the needs of
international undergraduates in Duke's history.
The gift is the second from the Karshes to support financial aid in
the past three years. In 2005, they committed $12 million principally
to support Duke's need-based financial aid endowment for domestic
undergraduate students, bringing their total support for students to
$32 million.
``The Karshes understand the importance of a robust financial aid
program and the advantages to all Duke students if the best in the
world are among them,'' Brodhead said. ``In the past, while we have had
some aid for international undergraduates, we have been open mainly to
those who could afford Duke. We will now be able to admit many more who
require financial aid, enriching our community and advancing Duke's
global connectivity.''
Most of the gift, $15 million, will be used to establish an
endowment that provides need-based scholarship grants to international
undergraduates. Officials said the gift will enable Duke to bring the
number of aided international undergraduates on campus to around 90.
Currently, 416 international students are enrolled in Duke's two
undergraduate schools, the Trinity College of Arts and Sciences and the
Pratt School of Engineering.
The balance of the gift will be used to enhance the experience of
international students who receive aid. Half of this, $2.5 million,
will establish an endowment to provide enhanced benefits to all aided
international undergraduates, including financial assistance for travel
home and an expanded orientation program when they arrive on campus.
[Committee Testimony Note: Having money to go home makes it financial
possible, but if these students are afraid that they cannot get a visa
to come back, they may choose not to go home. Both stateside processing
of visa extensions and a rethinking of non-immigrant intent are needed
to make these students feel secure enough to travel.]
The final $2.5 million will establish an endowment to support the
Karsh International Scholars Program. This new program will provide a
select group of aided international students with funding for three
summers of research or research-service opportunities in Durham,
throughout the U.S. or abroad, including in their home countries. The
program is expected to support summer stipends for about 20 such
scholars who will be selected through a competitive process.
[Committee Testimony Note: While the stipend may come from Duke, the
kinds of activities may require that students go on ``payroll''
(perhaps at zero rate) for other purposes such as insurance at the
summer venue. Such students would have to be employable (``I-9able'')
even if they were receiving no direct payment. Further, students who
are afraid that they cannot get visas will be reluctant or unable to
participate in programs abroad.]
``We expect the Karsh International Scholars Program to draw some
of the most accomplished international students in the world to Duke,''
Brodhead said.
Duke is one of a limited number of schools with a ``need-blind''
admissions policy, which means that all U.S. applicants are accepted
regardless of their ability to pay for college. Duke guarantees it will
meet 100 percent of demonstrated financial need. Financial aid packages
combine grants, loans and work-study opportunities after assessing what
parents and students can reasonably contribute. More than 40 percent of
Duke's undergraduates receive financial aid to attend the university.
In December, Duke announced significant enhancements to its financial
aid program to provide access to a Duke education for lower and middle
income families. (See http://news.duke.edu/2007/12/financialaid.html/)
In his 2004 inaugural address, Brodhead identified increasing
Duke's endowment for financial aid as one of his top priorities. In
2005, he announced a three-year campaign, the Financial Aid Initiative,
with a goal of raising $300 million in endowment by Dec. 31, 2008. (See
http://news.duke.edu/2005/12/financialaid.html) With $15 million of the
Karshes' gift directed to financial aid endowment, the effort to date
has raised $260 million, more than 85 percent of the goal.
``We heartily endorse Duke's commitment to a `need-blind' policy
for domestic students, as well as its effort to increase assistance to
talented students from around the world,'' said Bruce Karsh, a 1977
Duke graduate. ``In making this gift, Martha and I seek to enhance
intellectual diversity at Duke and offer the world's best and brightest
students, regardless of financial circumstances, the opportunity to
study at one of this nation's top universities. In addition, we hope to
foster cross-cultural alliances and friendships that will both promote
the power of education and encourage goodwill toward Duke and the
United States throughout the world.''
Bruce Karsh is President of Oaktree Capital Management, LLC in Los
Angeles. He chairs the Board of Directors of Duke Management Company,
which is responsible for managing Duke's endowment, and is a member of
the Duke Board of Trustees' Executive Committee.
John F. Burness
2008 Office of News & Communications
615 Chapel Drive, Box 90563, Durham, NC 27708-0563
APPENDIX 2
Following is a sampling of items selected from the Duke web site.
Note the science and technology components and the global nature of the
study and research. Visits to the web sites of other major teaching and
research institutions would show similar global involvement.
http://www.international.duke.edu/
Highlights of Duke Internationalization
<bullet> Duke undergraduates study abroad at the highest rate
of participation (48 percent) of any of the top ten private
research universities.
<bullet> Duke offers instruction in 25 foreign languages
<bullet> The Duke Class of 2011 is 9.4 percent international
<bullet> Duke offers an undergraduate major in International
Comparative Studies
<bullet> The DukeEngage program offers every student a civic
engagement opportunity somewhere in the world
<bullet> Duke has five federally-funded Title VI Centers for
Foreign Language and Area Studies
<bullet> Duke has a federally-funded Title VI Center for
International Business Education and Research
<bullet> Duke has a Global Health Institute involving all its
schools
<bullet> Duke has over 300 partnerships with international
institutions
<bullet> Duke has a world-wide network of over 40
international alumni clubs
International News
<bullet> Following the Law on Export Controls
published on Wed., 30 Jan. 2008 17:08:00-0500
New office helps faculty, staff navigate federal rules
<bullet> Dressy Top and Jeans Make for a Ball Supporting
Women's Health in Africa
published on Wed., 30 Jan. 2008 15:45:00-0500
Duke to hold first Blue Jean Ball Feb. 16
<bullet> New Rules for the Road
published on Wed., 30 Jan. 2008 15:20:00-0500
New policy improves opportunities for international study
<bullet> Bruce and Martha Karsh to Give $20 Million to Support
International Students
published on Wed., 30 Jan. 2008 13:06:00-0500
The gift is the Karshes' second in three years to support
financial aid, bringing their total support for Duke students
to $32 million.
<bullet> President Addresses Duke Community on Death of
Graduate Student
published on Mon., 21 Jan. 2008 21:35:00-0500
Open forum to be held Jan. 23 in CIEMAS
<bullet> Duke Receives Largest Number of Applications in
School History
published on Wed., 16 Jan. 2008 16:03:00-0500
Duke's new financial aid policies may have encouraged more
students to apply, said Dean of Undergraduate Admissions
Christoph Guttentag
http://dukeengage.duke.edu/
About DukeEngage
The DukeEngage program provides funding for Duke undergraduates who
wish to pursue an intensive civic engagement experience anywhere in the
world. Through DukeEngage, students apply what they have learned in the
classroom to address societal issues at home or abroad. Not only do
students tackle real-world problems, but they develop the valuable
skills and self-knowledge that evolve from spending time in an
immersive service experience.
The Duke Endowment and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation each
contributed $15 million to start an endowment that will enable a
significant portion of Duke's student body to serve locally, nationally
and internationally through DukeEngage. Through their service, Duke
students and the communities they touch will be transformed.
Any Duke undergraduate who has completed at least two semesters of
classes is eligible for participation. Duke will cover expenses (travel
and living) associated with the immersive experience. For students on
need-based financial aid, Duke will also assume responsibility for the
``summer earnings'' requirement.
Students can serve in one of three ways:
<bullet> by participating in a Duke-sponsored or organized
program;
<bullet> by participating in a program that Duke coordinates
with an outside provider of student internships or volunteer
work in the U.S. and/or abroad;
<bullet> by submitting a funding proposal for a unique
internship experience of a student's own creation
In the summer of 2007, nearly 90 Duke students participated in the
DukeEngage pilot program, serving in Durham (NC), New Orleans, India,
Kenya, Tanzania, Yemen, Ukraine, Costa Rica, South Africa and other
locations across the globe.
[Committee Testimony Note: The domestic work and volunteer services
raise the ``employment'' issues already mentioned. The international
travel opportunities raise the stateside visa extension and non-
immigrant intent issues already mentioned.]
Discussion
Chairman Baird. All right. Great. Thank you for very, very
excellent presentations on all parts.
I am cognizant that I should address the issue. We extended
an invitation to DHS to participate, and apparently they were
unable to, their witnesses, the people who would most likely
have been participating today on a panel, were unavailable. Dr.
Ehlers and I were just chatting about the need to bring them in
at some point, not necessarily even in a formal setting such as
this, but perhaps some integrated effort between DHS and ICE
and State and others to address these issues. Because I am not
sure the coordination there is what it needs to be. Dr.
Goodman, you certainly look like a suspicious and dangerous
individual, so I can perfectly understand why they shook you
down the way they did, but, I mean, somebody else, a more
upstanding individual shouldn't have to undergo what you did.
I actually know of a state legislator who was threatened
with being sent to Guantanamo, and so that is not just
scholars, but the point you made about scholars, the impression
that gains, and this is your first impression. You come here
with great enthusiasm and energy and excited, and you have
worked your whole life, and as many of you know, the conditions
under which some of the folks who work their way to come to the
United States, the opportunities that they had to just carve
out of scratch sometimes to get where they got, to come here,
and then the shining city on the hill, the first impression is
we don't even want you here, pal, is not particularly
welcoming.
So we intend to follow up on that, and the point was well
taken, and your personal example was, is quite valuable.
I am also cognizant that I don't want this, Mr. Edson, to
be a kind of an, okay. These folks say this. Why don't you do
that. It would easy to devolve into that, but what I, let me
summarize the things that really stand out for me that were
consistent across the testimony, and if you want to comment on
that, that is fine. I think what I might want to do is ask, say
at some point let us try to have a meeting with State and
figure out what we can do about some of these. Because these
are things that I have, I was academic before being in this
job, and I certainly saw it, and I travel a bunch and have and
periodically as Vern and many members do, we get notices from
our constituents, please help this person get into this
conference and maybe we get on the phone, and it becomes
tedious.
I should mention we have been joined by Dr. Bartlett from
Maryland as well. Roscoe, I am sorry I didn't catch you there
earlier.
These are some of the things that seem to be, to me, common
sense, not particularly dangerous to our country by any means
and imminently doable. And let me just list some of these that
I heard, either heard or read.
The issue repeatedly mentioned of the local, domestic
extension of the visas makes an awful lot of sense to me, and
I, maybe there are reasons to not do that, but it certainly, if
there are such reasons, they elude me.
A second one has to do with this exchange visitor program
and the two-year bar. Just the nature of, we want to promote
international travel, international exchange, and to say to
somebody, we want you to collaborate with U.S. scientists and
your home scientists, your home institution, but by golly, if
you go back there to even see if your lab is collecting dust,
don't expect to come back into the U.S. for two years really is
a bar. It is a bar to effective research, especially since
increasingly our research enterprise is an international,
global operation. It may be a flat Earth, but apparently you
can fall off of it if you leave the country, our country for a
little bit. And that shouldn't be the case.
So I understand from my reading that the intent is to make
sure that there is an allowance for new blood, so to speak, to
come into the exchange visitor program, but it is not like the
academics or scholars are interchangeable. You don't just plug
and play. Okay. So we got one scholar here. Here. She is gone.
Here is another one. This person may happen to be one of the
world's experts in visual system or in cancer or in neutrino
discovery or whatever. We need them to be able to go back and
forth.
So I really for the life of me don't see why that exists
and why we can't fix it, and my understanding, I think, is that
that could be an administrative fix rather than statutory. If
it requires statutory, let us know.
The, another thing that I know is a real challenge for
international scholars is this issue of work. We, I am, I quite
literally wrote the book on internships in the social sciences,
and I believe that getting people out of the classroom, into a
work environment is conducive to our economic enterprise but
also there is just no substitute for being in a business and
getting your hands dirty and doing stuff. And time and time
again we see international scholars stymied because they are
not allowed to work. Well, we are not talking about taking jobs
from Americans here. We are talking about maybe a post-doc in
neuro-biology going into a clinic and doing some work that is
synergistic. They are getting the hands-on skill, and the
clinic is getting their services. So adjusting that work issue
really ought to be something we explore.
And the same is true actually, not just at the post-doc or
doctorate level, it is also true for many of our undergraduates
who I think could perform quite well and benefit from it.
Finally, I understand the immigration intent challenge, but
my understanding of the literature on lie detection devices is
that it is not particularly sound, and we are asking for a more
primitive assessment. I was tempted to ask Ms. Cotten if she
intends to steal the water bottle from the dais there or not
and to prove to me that she had no such intent. And what
evidentiary basis she would use to prove that she has no intent
to steal the water bottle would be perhaps a fair analogy for
what some of these folks face.
So those are the things that strike me, and I know there
are others as well, but I will give you a chance to just
address any of those you want, Mr. Edson, and then, but, again,
don't feel like you have to solve them all. You are not in a
position to do that, and I don't want it to just all be, if you
could, though, this would be on successful hearing. We would
put a letter on the calendar.
Mr. Edson. Thank you for that tremendous opportunity to
solve the problems of the world.
If the Committee has time, a meeting to discuss
particularly the J-1 and the work issues with our colleagues
from ECA, the Educational and Cultural Programs, and from DHS,
that would be very valuable I think, because that is beyond
what the Bureau of Consular Affairs does.
On the stateside revalidation, that is an issue we have
looked at very carefully, and for a long time. We actually
never did students in the United States. For several years
business people in certain categories, skilled workers in the
H-1B Program were able to extend their visas in the United
States. After 9/11 when the statutory requirement for biometric
collection was imposed, that happened at the same time when our
own Inspector General had directed us to close the program due
to concerns about fraud and our inability to effectively fight
fraud, perhaps oversimplifying a little bit, but I think part
of the concern was when an applicant is submitting an
application like that, you have no chance to call them in for
interview, so you have to tell them to go abroad to complete
the application. That immediately tips them off that there is a
problem, and they will just stay in the United States and never
actually complete the application.
So working around that was something that we and our
Inspector General were both concerned about. We did stop the
program in July or August of 2004, I believe, and have
discussed it quite a bit with the business community, since
that was what preexisted, extensions of it, and continue those
discussions now. We still have the same security concerns. We
have more flexibility in biometrics now that we are collecting
ten prints and collecting them in a way that enables us to, we
use the word recycle internally, but that is not quite right.
But it enables us to attach one set of prints to multiple
applications from the same applicant. And so use that data more
intelligently I think for the future.
It is an issue of ongoing discussion and interest I think
on all sides, and we would welcome continued discussion.
Most of the non-immigrant visas that are denied, around the
world, they are denied under 214(b), because the applicant
appears to be an intending immigrant. The refusal rate has
actually declined ever so slightly since 9/11, particularly for
students. It had declined a little more for students than it
declined for the rest of the world. About 80 percent of
students are approved for visas now, and the rate is, because
of the way our data is collected, it is, this is anecdotal, but
the rate certainly seems to be much higher for students in
graduate and post-graduate areas, students and scholars.
We have been concerned about bright-line tests for the
opposite reason than was discussed before. We were concerned
that we might deny an opportunity for an applicant to come to
the United States who doesn't meet some fairly standard-looking
test. I mean, every day we are going to issue visas to fairly
poor, young, single people who have never been out of their
country of nationality before. That is sort of a tourist visa
example, but that happens every day, and we are cognizant of
the need to structure whatever guidance we provide on 214(b),
so it is not only in keeping with the statutory framework but
doesn't create additional problems.
It is a screen for non, again, I am stumbling with phrases
here, but perhaps what you might call non-serious students. It
would not be right to assume that we are not making proper visa
decisions most of the time. I think we are, there are a number
of students who come in to see us and have no clue what they
will be studying, don't speak English, even though the I-20 may
indicate that they did, and those sorts of students are being
screened out with the 214(b). There is a value in that part of
the law that we would have to look to replacing somehow and
requiring additional enforcement actions by ICE or something.
But it is a relatively inexpensive and hard to explain but easy
to implement tool for that purpose, if that is the continued
will of Congress.
Chairman Baird. Thank you. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is really kind of amusing but also sad. Some years ago I
spent a year in research program in Germany, and since I was
going to be there more than a year, I had to go down to the
oustlander omst, which is a foreign office, and register and so
forth. And I sat there, and I, well, I waited in line for about
two hours to get a form to fill out. Then after that I had to
go back to the line to hand in the form.
And so I spent four hours. When I got back to the institute
where I was, my German colleagues were absolutely horrified
that I had been subjected to this. They asked, why didn't you
tell them you were a professor? I said, well, in America it
doesn't make any difference. And they said, well, in Germany it
does.
But at any rate, after going through that very, very
bureaucratic process, incredibly bureaucratic, I thought, good
grief, thank goodness for the good old U.S.A. where we don't
have that sort of thing. And now we find the tables reversed.
We have gotten as bad, if not worse than many other countries.
And I think part of it in dealing with this issue and that
is why I think the idea proposed that we have a get together
informally, it is a three-headed monster. It is State, it is
Department of Homeland Security, and Citizenship and
Immigration Services, CIS.
I do have to say, Mr. Edson, you are probably the least bad
in this situation. Well, that is intended as a compliment. The
others need even more work than you do.
One concern I have, and I have visited a number of foreign
embassies, I have talked to consular officials. They have a
horrible task to try to decide who should go in, who should
not. But I think there are some problems there. A case that we
are working on now, this was a religious music conference in my
home city at the headquarters of a denomination which is in my
city. And quite a number of foreigners were not allowed. In
fact, in one case some 15 of them who were active in the music
service of their particular churches took a train a
considerable distance to get to the consular offices and
watched the consular official not even open their applications
or their portfolios. Just went right down the line, stamped,
no, no, no, no, no on all of them and sent them on their way
and never, they never had a chance to speak. Their portfolios
weren't opened. And that is unacceptable behavior.
The other, the one thing that has really bothered me over
the years is the impossible appeal process of people who are
denied. Frequently in a situation, people obviously call us and
say, can you help? We also tell them, well, some things we can
do, some we can't, but a consular official, I would think that
a letter from a member of Congress who personally knows the
people organizing the conference and has asked them about the
people coming and was there any possibility that they would be
inappropriate, and we sent a letter to the consular official.
And still he ignored it. And the review, there is no review. It
is the same official who denied it is the one who reviewed it.
There is something wrong with that process. There has to be
a reasonable appeal process, and I don't mean just for members
of Congress, but I mean for anyone who wants to appeal it and
go to someone else.
And I really think you have to re-examine that. The
purpose, your purpose is not to keep people out. Your purpose
is to welcome the good people and keep the bad people out, and
I think too, far too many good people are prevented from coming
here for perfectly legitimate reasons, whether academic or
otherwise.
So I urge you to really re-examine that carefully. Maybe
you need more consular officials. I know they are overworked. I
talked to one once and asked could she specifically say what
her job was, and she said, I say, no, all day long. When she
gets to work in the morning, there is a line stretching about a
block long, people trying to get in to see her, and she has to
process all those people all day long. And it is very
difficult. You may need some more people on that as well.
The one thing I do want to commend the State Department on,
by the way, is the way you handled the passport crisis last
year, which has nothing to do with this, but we had one person
in our office working full time, constantly, every day with the
people who came to us because they were waiting for their
passport, they had paid for their cruise, et cetera. And your
Department did yeoman work in trying to accommodate people. I
can remember only a couple who could not take the trip because
it didn't arrive in time. Many of them had heart attacks
waiting for it because it usually arrived two days ahead of
time. But you did yeoman work in that, and something that was
imposed on you from the outset by the Congress and just took
your time to catch up with it. So I do appreciate what the
State Department did on that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will pass.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Carnahan.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you. I want to commend the Chairman and
Ranking Member for really bringing this before the
Subcommittee. It really is essential, I think, to get the best
and the brightest minds here, no matter where they are coming
from. We should be a brain magnet to help keep us on the
cutting edge of science and innovation. You know, that is
greatly in our country's interest, and the collaborative value
of our scientists traveling to other parts of the world and
scientists from other parts of the world coming here is just
invaluable.
And I would echo the comments that were made earlier about
the value of those foreign visitors. Time and time again we see
foreign leaders, whether it is a prime minister, a member of
Parliament, or a key business person who has had an education
or exposure here, they can be some of our most powerful
spokesmen and allies in terms of improving relations. It is an
invaluable tool for our foreign policy as well as just our
practical science and innovation and the advancements.
I am Vice Chair on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
International Organizations and Human Rights Subcommittee, and
we had a series of hearings about America's image around the
world. And the bad news is in about a half a century of
polling, we are at the lowest ever in terms of our image. The
good news is there is this great reservoir of feeling that the
ideals of America are something that people aspire to. Freedom,
human rights, international cooperation. And so there is this
great reservoir that we can tap into, but I think having this
scientific exchange, educational exchange is vital to that, and
I really applaud the efforts of trying to get the right parties
around the table to see what we can do about this and to the
extent we need to involve our Foreign Affairs Committee in
that, I would certainly like to offer their assistance as well.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. I think we will
definitely take you up on that, and your dual committee
assignments will be tremendously helpful in that regard,
because as we mentioned, some of these changes can be just done
administratively. Others may require statutory changes, and we
will probably try to look for that on the Homeland Security.
Maybe we will even try to rustle up an appropriator or two,
because that always helps. Well, it usually helps.
Mr., Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony.
I understand that China produces several times as many
engineers a year as our country does. That is true?
Dr. Goodman. Yes.
Mr. Bartlett. I have heard about six times as many. Is that
true?
Dr. Goodman. Yes.
Mr. Bartlett. Is that also true of science, the physical
sciences? Do they turn out a lot more physical scientists than
we do also?
Dr. Goodman. I believe.
Mr. Bartlett. I also understand that there are many
companies in our country that have a very difficult time
finding these technical people, scientists and engineers, and
that if they can't find them in our country, they will move
their company to where these skills exist. Is that also your
understanding?
With these realities I am having a little trouble
understanding why we are really concerned that the scientists
and engineers might not go back home. Now, I understand we
don't want illegal aliens here, but the one group that comes
here that I would be less concerned about than most other
groups, whether they went home or not, would be those groups
that we have an acute shortage of in our country. Wouldn't you
think so?
Dr. Goodman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bartlett. Now, I know the State Department is handed
the responsibility of making sure that the people who come here
are likely to go home, but wouldn't you agree, Mr. Edson, that
the problems of these people overstaying their visas are
probably less than the problems of most other immigrants
overstaying their visas? I am having a hard time understanding
why we are hassling these people after they get here. Because,
you know, most of these skills we desperately need in this
country. You cannot for very long contend with a country that
is producing six times as many engineers and scientists as you
are producing, and by the way, what percent of our engineers
are Chinese? As I look at our graduate schools, some of them it
is somewhere near 50 percent, isn't it? And they are going
home, I guess, some of them.
So it is more than the six to one ratio. It is maybe nine,
ten to one ratio. They are producing that many more engineers,
and we could presumably, the Chinese engineers in this country
are going back to China. So I am having some trouble
understanding why we hassle these people that would be the
least problem if they overstayed their visa.
Can you help me understand why I am wrong?
Mr. Edson. I have kind of a simple role in the process
because we implement the law. The H-1B, the skilled worker
category, was exempted from the residence abroad requirement by
Congress, but the students are required to prove that they
intend to return home, and so we do ask those types of
questions during the interview.
Mr. Bartlett. I understand you need to do that, but, you
know, hassling them after they are here I am having some
trouble understanding.
Mr. Edson. I hassled them overseas.
Mr. Bartlett. Since we desperately need them. Sir?
Mr. Edson. No. I am just saying I hassled them overseas.
DHS hassles them here.
Mr. Bartlett. Oh, you hassle them in both places. Well, I
have a problem with hassling them at all since we desperately
need these skills in our country. I understand that you are
charged with the responsibility of implementing the law, and
the law is you are supposed to ask them, are you going home,
and you are not supposed to let those come here that you have a
fair suspicion are not going to go back home after their stay
here.
But don't you think it is rational that we treat these
people in a dignified fashion?
Mr. Edson. Certainly, and we strive to do that. We train
our officers to do that. We are moving them through fairly
quickly because we are trying to get to everybody that wants a
visa to the United States. China is a good example. Over 80
percent of those students, or about 80 percent of those
students, will qualify for visas and come into the United
States. So they are meeting that test.
Mr. Bartlett. As other countries improved the quality of
their secondary education, do we have a smaller percentage of
students seeking to come to our country? Are we still the Mecca
for higher education, particularly in technical areas? Dr.
Goodman.
Dr. Goodman. Thank you, Congressman. We are the world's
leading destination for students studying outside their
country. Our market share has declined in the course of a
decade from about 40 percent to 22 percent, but the pie has
grown substantially over the course of the decade. I think we
will continue to be the major destination, partly because no
other country on earth has the capacity that America has to
absorb international students. We had 582,000 last year here in
the United States. They study at just 150 schools, half of the
do. We have nearly 4,000 accredited colleges and universities,
so we have a much greater capacity to expand.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has
expired.
Chairman Baird. Dr. McNerney, as an engineer,
mathematician, you have long interest in this, and I welcome
your comments. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the Committee members or the panel members for testifying
today.
You know, the issue is a difficult one, and it is
complicated by the sort of emotional issues surrounding the
entire immigration debate, which taints every single aspect of
that, whether it should or not.
Dr. Fineberg, thank you for coming in today. Dr. Fineberg.
In your testimony you suggested that the U.S. should not
necessarily interview every single applicant but should use its
resources on the applicants that actually pose some sort of a
threat. Do you have any specific objective criteria in mind
when you say that, or are you, yes. Let us leave it at that.
Dr. Fineberg. We heard from Mr. Edson I thought a useful
starting point for this, namely those applicants who are
repeating an application for the same type of visa as
previously held and who, for whom we have already adequate bio-
documentation, in this case, ten finger prints, already the
Department has placed these applicants into a category where it
will not be necessary to re-interview. I would submit that many
of the categories we have been talking about in terms of
scientific roles that people play, would put them in a lower-
risk category. My general purpose in making that comment is
that I believe that if we attempt to apply the same intensity
of attention to all applicants, we will not be deploying our
available resources to screen out the high-risk applicants in
an optimal way. We would be better served in terms of our
security interests if we could concentrate where the risks are
higher and allow more of the facilitation of visit for those
where the risks are truly de minimis.
Mr. McNerney. Well, what mechanisms are already in place to
verify that the students and scientists are following the terms
of their visa, and are those mechanisms sufficient to give
comfort to DHS?
Dr. Fineberg. I can't answer that question from my own
knowledge, sir. I think we probably would want to hear from DHS
about that and maybe Mr. Edson has information that would be
relevant to it.
Mr. Edson. Thank you. The primary change of benefit to our
consular officers in the field is the student exchange visitor
information system, the consolidated online system for
registering and tracking foreign students in the United States,
because it does enable, the data is input primarily by the
educational institutions and enables our officers to verify
that a student is in valid status at the time they apply for
renewal.
In fact, this is speculative, but I believe that it is
possible that that decrease in the refusal rates for students
that I mentioned might be tied in large part to the SEVIS
Program that provides such good data and basically eliminated
improperly completed I-20s, the form that is required for a
student visa or fraudulent I-20s.
Mr. McNerney. Well, to the extent that you can say today
how many documented incidents are there of foreign students or
scholars entering this country and then taking actions to harm
us or going home and taking actions to harm us? Are there any
documented cases or how many?
Mr. Edson. I don't have that data. That would be data from
ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
Mr. McNerney. Ms. Cotten, how have the visa delays and
denials affected the ability of your university to recruit the
top scientists and engineers that you would like to recruit?
Ms. Cotten. I can tell you that we would normally recruit
first because our people are going to international
conferences. They are recruiting out of the graduate programs
where we have a lot of international students coming through
our own programs. And the difficulty we have is once we have
identified them, can they get here? And so I can't say that we
have a 50 percent failure rate or an 80 percent failure rate or
20, but there are always those people that either can't come or
are delayed. Every year we have people who are identified to
come on research projects, and for whatever reason they cannot
get their visa. Normally it is a 214(b), non-immigrant intent
issue. Or it takes so long that they just give up, and
everybody says, oh, this is too much trouble. I have got a
grant. I have to go forward with the grant. I have to find
somebody else to fill that slot.
So it is not numbers so much as it is identified
individuals who are unique, who know just what they know, and
it is special, and we may not be able to get them.
And if I could speak to your earlier question regarding how
we are tracking or managing students when they are here, Mr.
Edson mentioned the SEVIS System, and as an educational
institution involved in the SEVIS System, we are required every
semester to report on every international student, that they
are enrolled and moving forward in a full-time program. And for
all of our scholars, the J-1 scholars, we report when they
arrive, and then we report specifically if we authorize them to
give a lecture at another school, to do research at a local
university or beyond. Any of those actions that would normally
be work actions or changes in their activities, we report as
those occur, and we put that information into SEVIS.
Mr. McNerney. So a lot of the responsibilities fall into
the university.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. I know Dr. Ehlers has to leave shortly, and
I may have an amendment on the Floor to address. Dr. Bartlett,
can you stay for a few extra minutes here? I just, one last set
of questions really.
Some progress is being made, more progress needs to be
made, but because of the kind of anecdotal occurrences that
happen there exists this bad impression in some ways in the
actual community.
One of my questions would be what is being done? I think,
Dr. Goodman, you may have mentioned some of this in your
written testimony. What is being on a positive, proactive side
to publicize that there is this nice phrase, I think maybe in
Ms. Cotten's testimony, the border is closed but the doors are
open. And in a positive sense, meaning if you can come, you
know, you can't just walk across the border but basically to
get the word out that we are doing a better job and that you
have reason to believe you might be treated better, and what is
being done to do that, or what should we do to create that?
And then finally after that question is addressed, if
anybody has any remaining comments that they feel are
absolutely essential before we draw the hearing to a close, I
would welcome those also. I will give Dr. Bartlett and Mr.
McNerney a chance as well.
Dr. Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I think you would be really
delighted when ECA has the chance to meet with you, given the
outreach that they have tried abroad and given the great
expansion of both the website and the foreign student advising
network that they have encourage aboard, and also the results
of the President delegations that they have taken abroad to the
key-sending countries. More than anything else those
activities, the universities in partnership with the
government, saying that our doors are open and we welcome
international students, is vital, and it is having an affect.
Also, in those key markets where the ambassador sees in the
press a, the anecdote and is able to then say in reality the
visa issuance rates are X, we are open extra hours, students
are the head of the line, and to aggressively go after that at
any point in time is really just critical. And we have to do
that every day because every day there will be that anecdote or
that incident.
With respect to your second question, I did want to suggest
that we track also the flow of students as Mr. Bartlett was
asking, around the world, not just to and from the United
States. I have been struck in the past two years at the number
of countries, more than a dozen now, that have created special
green cards or fast track to green cards for the critical
skills people. If you get a Ph.D. or an M.D. or whatever that
we need in our country, as soon as you finish you can stay, and
you can immediately move to either long-term residency status
or the equivalent of two to four years staying.
And so as you asked me about the market we are competing
for and our market share, we are also competing against those
countries that by legislate fiat are saying critical skills
people can stay and become permanent residents or citizens.
Chairman Baird. It is an excellent point. We really need to
look at that. Unfortunately, the demagoguery that exists around
the immigration issue right now sometimes obscures the
legitimate issue that if we have a need for qualified high-
level people to work here and we don't allow those people to
work here, they will go offshore. And industries will take
their business offshore, and their capital offshore. And all
the spin-off jobs these create, I can't remember whose
testimony it was, I think it was actually maybe yours, Dr.
Goodman, that the extraordinary number of Nobel Laureates I
alluded to earlier but also many of the major businesses and
developments in the last century that made all of our lives
better came from foreign-born scholars who trained here and
stayed here and created entrepreneurial enterprises. And what a
terrible loss it is for all of us if we force those folks to
leave.
We also have some rather ironic barriers, for example, if
even one percent of your company, if you have a startup with
international, non-U.S. citizens, even though they are living
here, trained here, if you start up as a non-U.S. citizen as
one of the startup owners of the company, you may be
restricted, for example, in terms of what you can apply for in
terms of U.S. business development assistance. It is rather
silly actually and we ought to look at those kinds of things.
And this committee, maybe it was Dr. Bartlett, I don't want to
put words in your mouth, someone on this committee suggested
once that there should be a green card stapled to every Ph.D.
and engineering grad in this country. Some variation of that
may have some merit.
Any other comments before my time is closed that people
want to make that haven't had a chance to? I will also give Dr.
McNerney and then, or actually Dr. Bartlett, then Dr. McNerney
a last round here.
Mr. Edson. If I could, to complement what Dr. Goodman said
about the public diplomacy, you know, Secretary Rice has a
personal and professional interest in higher education and has
made a personal commitment to make it easier for international
scholars and students to get here. In addition to the formal
programs that ECA has many of them broad, some of them targeted
and very creative and unusual, new ways for us, the consular
sections, we do get them involved, because any time there is
bad information, it makes our life harder.
In addition to making it harder for the United States to
get these people in here, it makes the entire visa process
harder. So our officers participate in web chats, speak to
student groups. The Assistant Secretary, my boss, Maura Hardy,
travels a great deal of the time and always speaks to
university groups when she travels to try to break down some of
the poor information.
Chairman Baird. I think that is very admirable, and I
should also note historically some of the adverse impressions
of our country did not, it did not just start six or seven
years ago or post 9/11. There were things like the closing of
the international libraries, U.S. libraries internationally
happened before this Administration's watch. It happened back
early '90s, and I think that kind of activity had, that was the
beginning of an adverse impression of the U.S. and has harmed
us in ways we don't fully appreciate.
Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. There is a clause in the Lord's
Prayer that guides me in much of what I do. It is that clause
that asks the Lord not to lead us into temptation but or to
deliver from temptation, depending upon the version that you
are reading. Like it is probably not fair to ask the goat to
guard the cabbage patch, because he has a conflicting interest.
His interest to be responsive to your wishes and the temptation
that the cabbage offers him.
I say that because I don't want to be accused of profiling
in what I say next, but I would suggest that there is a big
difference between a student coming here from Iran or North
Korea, and I hope they come from North Korea, by the way, or a
student coming from Australia or Canada or England.
Referencing that clause in the Lord's Prayer, I just think
that it is very unfair to put these students from countries
like, and maybe China for the future or Iran or North Korea, in
a situation where they have conflicting loyalties.
So I am asking do we treat students coming from countries
like Australia, England, or Canada differently than we do
students coming from these other countries? You see from a
national security, from a national interest perspective, I
don't care whether those students from Australia, Canada, and
England go home or not. I am concerned about the students, and
because of my concern that we should not unfairly put people in
compromising situations, where they would have conflicting
loyalties. I just don't think it is fair. Okay. It is not
profiling. I just don't think it is fair.
I am really concerned about the students from these other
countries where if they stayed and got a job where there was
some knowledge of a national security interest, that they
would, it is not fair to them. Are we treating these students
differently? I hope we are.
Mr. Edson. In the visa process, yes. The students from
countries that are state sponsors of terrorism we are required
by law to send them back to Washington and----
Mr. Bartlett. And China is not one of those, are they?
Mr. Edson. China is not one of those, but China is----
Mr. Bartlett. But don't you think that----
Mr. Edson.--targeted under the Mantis Program.
Mr. Bartlett.--this student from China is put in a
compromising situation? These are people with an enormously
proud heritage. When my ancestors were Barbarians, running
around the continent of Europe and the British Isles, they had
a really advanced civilization in China. Don't you think it is
unfair to put them in a situation where there is a conflict of
interest? Even if they are not the sponsor of terrorism. Just
as a human consideration, unfair to put them in that situation.
Mr. Edson. We are aware that their government poses
particular challenges in certain security areas, and they are
vetted in that way in the visa process. I can't speak to the
end of the process when they are in the United States, which is
a DHS function.
Mr. Bartlett. I am concerned about our national security. I
am even more concerned that we treat people fairly, and I think
putting a person in a situation where they have conflicting
interests is unfair, not the right thing to do. So I would hope
that this is a part of our policy when we are admitting these
students and watching them after they are here and determining
whether they can return promptly or not, wouldn't you think?
And if we don't have different rules, either written or
unwritten that we play by, don't you think we should?
Mr. Edson. In the visa process we do screen. China is one
of those countries that is of targeted interest for issues
related to sensitive technology, and so we do screen them in a
different way in the visa process when they are overseas.
Mr. Bartlett. Well, with our acute and growing need for
more people in these technical areas, I would hope that our
immigration policies could be helping to help solve this
problem rather than impeding the solution to the problem.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Bartlett, thank you.
Dr. McNerney, any other comments or questions?
Mr. McNerney. Thank you very much. Again, this has been a
very important hearing, and I think we need to continue this
sort of discussion. Having gone through the rigors of a Ph.D.
program, I understand how important it is to have visiting
scholars. They contribute in ways that go beyond what you are
studying, and they open up doors for you to go overseas and so
on and so forth. So I want to make sure that we do open those
up.
But I think some prior discussions with Chairman Baird,
there is some very specific recommendations that would be
helpful and that could turn into legislation. I hope to work
with the Chairman on that. You have actually elaborated on
those, a couple of things.
And also, we need to take into consideration our national
security, both in terms of whatever terrorist threat there may
be, but with the economics and the globalization. So we have a
number of things to balance here, and this is the type of
discussion that is going to help open up that type of thinking
that allows us to move forward on a general basis with these
sort of things.
So thank you very much for your time and your work, and
with that I will yield.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much. I will just close with
a brief anecdote from my experience as a professor.
I was privileged one evening to join a number of the honor
society inductees at my university, and they asked the students
to comment on what was the single most important aspect of
their academic experience. This was at Pacific Lutheran
University where I used to chair a department. And there were
maybe 45 or so young people there, and the intriguing thing was
that every single one virtually, maybe two or three exceptions,
listed study abroad. And it became such that it was so
repetitive, you know, the next one would get up, my time
studying abroad.
And I say that because what a tragedy it would be, we tend
to think that, well, we are just keeping out potential dangers
to our country, but if other countries reciprocate, then the
ability of our young people to study abroad, which is the
opposite direction than what we have talked about today but
equally important, if they feel harassed or unsafe or
unwelcome, we, too, will lose what, for the very brightest
students, the top, cream of the crop at our institution, it
wasn't the class they took from Dr. Baird, not surprisingly. It
was their opportunity to travel and learn from a different
culture.
And that, we don't want to lose that for our students, and
we certainly don't want to lose that for other students, and we
desperately don't want to lose that for other scholars. So your
testimony and comments today are tremendously helpful to us,
and I want you to know that I am personally committed to this,
as is Dr. Bartlett and Dr. Ehlers and Dr. McNerney and the rest
of this committee. And we will follow up. We will work
together, perhaps in a less formal setting, to see what can be
done, again, with the aforementioned agencies, et cetera. And
hopefully make further progress beyond what has already been
made. These things don't happen overnight, but we are committed
to establishing that, and I feel good because I have a sense
that as I travel internationally and meet with other people, I
can both acknowledge some of the frustrations of the past but
share with them the positive gains that have been made and the
commitment that I am hearing today to make further gains.
So I am grateful for your testimony and your leadership on
this. I thank my colleagues on the Committee, our Committee
staff for putting forward and together such a great hearing,
and with that this committee stands adjourned. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
<SKIP PAGES = 000>
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PROMOTING SECURE BORDERS AND OPEN DOORS
A National-Interest-Based Visa Policy for Students and Scholars
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
It is now recognized at the highest levels of government that
America's strong interest in robust educational and scientific exchange
is ill served by the visa system that is currently in place. This
situation is not the result of ill will; no one is to blame. Every
control instituted since 9/11 has seemed, in itself, to add a
reasonable--even necessary--measure of protection. But in their
totality, these controls are hindering international student and
scholar access to the United States to an extent that itself threatens
national security. Our current visa system maximizes neither our safety
nor our long-term national interests in scientific exchange and in
educating successive generations of world leaders--interests that the
United States has recognized for more than half a century.
There are four problems: the absence of policy, of focus, of time
guidelines, and of balance between resources and responsibilities.
In a policy vacuum, every control is a good one, and delay or
denial is the safest course. The State Department's visa adjudicators
require an operational policy that articulates not only our interest in
control, but also our interest in openness, and that guides them in how
to find this crucial balance. Responsibility for articulating such a
policy lies with the Department of Homeland Security.
Far too many adjudicatory and investigative resources are wasted on
routine reviews of low-risk applications. This not only frustrates and
delays visa applicants unnecessarily; it also precludes the allocation
of resources pursuant to risk analysis. The practice of across-the-
board visa interviews has led to millions of 90-second interviews of
dubious security value, which clog the system while precluding serious
scrutiny where it is needed. The practice of sending virtually all visa
applications in the sciences to Washington for security clearances
(``Mantis'' reviews) reverses the time-tested policy of requiring such
clearances only when indicated by the identity of the applicant, the
applicant's nationality, and the specific field of advanced science or
technology in question; the number of clearances requested has
increased from about 1,000 in 2000 to more than 20,000 in 2003. The
requirement that every Arab and Muslim adult male undergo a Washington
security check (``Condor'' review) has created an additional flood of
clearance requests. Low-risk frequent visitors, and those seeking re-
entry after temporary travel abroad, are often required to run the same
gauntlet every time they seek re-entry.
The ``Mantis'' and ``Condor'' clearance processes lack time
guidelines and transparency. Bureaucrats are like the rest of us. They
make decisions when forced to by a deadline. Absent a ``clock,'' cases
can languish without resolution, and the applicant has no recourse for
determining the application's status.
Furthermore, these systems have been put in place without reference
to whether or not resources exist to implement them. In no foreseeable
circumstance will enough resources be available to effectively support
visa processing as it is currently being done. Balancing resources and
responsibilities is the essence of policy. Without this balance, our
visa-processing system will be unable to serve the national interest in
providing timely access for legitimate visitors.
We believe that our nation's leaders share our interest in fixing
these problems. Following are our recommendations for doing so.
PROMOTING SECURE BORDERS AND OPEN DOORS
Recommendations for a National-Interest-Based Visa Policy for Students
and Scholars
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
1. Provide effective policy guidance.
<bullet> Congress and the Department of Homeland Security must
act to make ``Secure Borders--Open Doors'' the effective policy
guidance for the Department of State.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
the Department of State (DOS) have yet to issue a joint statement that
clearly articulates visa policy--i.e., that would turn ``Secure
Borders, Open Doors'' into operational policy. In January 2006, DOS and
DHS announced a three-part joint vision, ``Secure Borders and Open
Doors in the Information Age,'' to guide future development of
solutions to improve border security while still welcoming visitors to
the United States. However, until this vision is translated into an
operational policy, existing disconnects on visa policy will continue
within DHS and between DHS and DOS.
2. Focus efforts on those who require special screening.
<bullet> Give consulates discretion to grant waivers of
personal appearance based on risk analysis, subject to State
Department policy guidance and approval, as recommended by the
State Department Inspector General in December 2002.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Under the terms of the 2004 Intelligence Reform
Act, the Secretary of State no longer has the authority to implement
this recommendation, although consular officers do retain some
authority to waive this requirement under very limited circumstances.
DOS gives priority for personal interviews to students and scholars and
posts the appointment wait times for individual consulates online. DOS
continues to evaluate the use of digital video-conferencing technology
to help alleviate interview delays in countries with few U.S.
diplomatic posts, as well as to ease the burden on applicants who must
travel long distances. DOS plans to utilize computer software to allow
the transfer of fingerprints captured at the time of the original visa
application to a renewal application, to alleviate the need for
repetitive personal appearances.
<bullet> Refine controls on advanced science and technology.
In consultation with the scientific community, define the
advanced science and technology to which access must be
controlled, and empower consular officers to exercise
discretion on non-sensitive applications where neither the
applicant nor the applicant's country present concerns.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: NAFSA is unaware of any progress in returning
the Technology Alert List (TAL) to its original intent of controlling
access only to advanced technology (although it is difficult to know,
given that the list is now classified). There is an interagency
process, headed by DHS, which discusses, among other issues, the
application of the TAL. DOS is also spending more time training
incoming consular officers about the TAL, and is also providing
additional training to officers in the field.
<bullet> Avoid repetitive processing of those who temporarily
leave the United States. Institute a presumption that a
security clearance is valid for duration of status or program,
assuming no status violations. Any necessary reviews within
this period should be fast-tracked.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: In February 2005, DOS extended Mantis clearance
validity for international students (F visa) for up to the length of
the approved academic program, to a maximum of four years, and for
exchange visitors (J visa), temporary workers (H visa), and
intracompany transferees (L visa), the clearance has been extended for
the duration of their approved activity, to a maximum of two years.
NAFSA has asked DOS to consider extending validity for exchange
visitors (J visa) for the duration of their approved activity, to a
maximum of five years.
<bullet> Avoid repetitive processing of frequent visitors.
Establish a presumption of approval for those who have
previously been granted U.S. visas and who have no status
violations.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: No system has been put in place to avoid the
repetitive processing of frequent, well known visitors. However, in
June 2005, visa validity for Chinese students and exchange visitors was
extended from six months, multiple entries to 12 months, multiple
entries.
<bullet> Expedite processing and save consular resources by
incorporating pre-screening or pre-certification of students
and scholars. This could be accomplished in many ways. Options
include: (1) sending countries agreeing to pre-screen
applicants in order to facilitate their citizens' entry into
the U.S.; (2) sending universities providing identity
verification under agreements executed with consulates; and (3)
the State Department utilizing its own overseas advising
centers to ensure that all necessary documents are in order
prior to applications being sent on to the consulates.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: NAFSA has seen no movement on this
recommendation.
3. Create a timely, transparent and predictable visa process.
<bullet> The White House should institute standard guidelines
for interagency reviews of visa applications:
- Establish a 15-day standard for responses to the
State Department from other agencies in the interagency
clearance process.
- Implement a 30-day standard for the completion of
the entire interagency review process, including the
response to the consulate's security clearance request.
- Flag for expedited processing any application not
completed within 30 days, and advise the consulate of
the delay and the estimated processing time remaining.
- In the case of applications not completed within 30
days, the applicant, or the program to which the
applicant seeks access, should be able to inquire about
the application's status, and the estimated processing
time remaining, via a call-in number or e-mail inbox.
- Establish a special review process to resolve any
cases not decided within 60 days.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: DOS has streamlined this process by moving from
a paper-based system to electronic transmission of clearance requests--
meaning that clearance requests no longer get ``lost'' as they did in
the previous system. DOS has also worked with the other agencies
involved to speed up the time in which the overwhelming majority of
these requests are processed. While there is still little transparency
in the process for individuals whose clearances are not processed
within 30 days, the reported average processing time for Mantis cases
continues to be less than 14 days.
<bullet> Make ground rules predictable by imposing them
prospectively, not on those already in the application
pipeline.
4. Provide the necessary resources, and manage within them.
<bullet> Congress must act to bring the resources appropriated
for the consular affairs function into line with the increased
scrutiny of visa applications that Congress demands, and the
State Department must manage within the available resources.
<bullet> Adequate resources must be provided to ensure the
inter-operability of data systems necessary for the efficient
functioning of the interagency review process.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS: Since 9/11, Congress has increased funding for
consular officers, and over the past six years, DOS has created 570 new
consular Foreign Service positions. DOS also continues to automate
obsolete visa processing systems. DOS has developed a fully electronic
visa application, and DOS and DHS have successfully piloted a
``paperless'' visa application system, with plans to introduce this by
early 2008. DOS and DHS, working with other agencies, also plan to
standardize screening criteria and create a virtual clearinghouse of
unified data.
NAFSA Visa Recommendations issued: April 2004
Implementation status last updated: January 1, 2008
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
<all>