[Senate Hearing 108-809]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-809
ADDRESSING THE NEW REALITY OF CURRENT VISA POLICY ON INTERNATIONAL
STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-635 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 12
Coleman, Hon. Norm, U.S. Senator from Minnesota.................. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Cotten, Catheryn, Director, International Office, Duke University 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Goodman, Allan E., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Institute of International Education........................... 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Herbert, Adam W., Ph.D., President, Indiana University........... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Jischke, Martin C., Ph.D., President, Purdue University.......... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Johnson, Marlene M., Executive Director and Chief Executive
Officer, NAFSA: Association of International Education......... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Kattouf, Hon. Theodore H., President and Chief Executive Officer,
AMIDEAST....................................................... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana................ 1
Mote, D.C. (Dan), Jr., Ph.D., President, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD............................................... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from Maryland............... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 33
------
Additional Statements and Questions and Answers Submitted for the
Record
Feingold, Russ D., U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, prepared
statement...................................................... 94
Honey, Tim, Executive Director, Sister Cities International,
prepared statement............................................. 96
Johnson, Marlene, response to question from Senator Feingold..... 95
Kattouf, Ted, responses to questions from Senator Feingold....... 95
Vande Berg, Dr. Michael, Director of International Programs,
Georgetown University, prepared statement...................... 98
ADDRESSING THE NEW REALITY OF CURRENT VISA POLICY ON INTERNATIONAL
STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G.
Lugar (chairman), presiding.
Present: Senators Lugar, Alexander, Coleman, and Sarbanes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM
INDIANA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is called to order. Today the committee meets to
examine the impact of new visa policies on foreign students and
researchers seeking to study in the United States. These
temporary visitors provide enormous economic and cultural
benefits to our country. Hosting foreign students also is one
of the most successful elements of our public diplomacy. We
have critiqued and even lamented some aspects of our public
diplomacy since the end of the cold war, but the work of our
universities in establishing ties with millions of foreign
students stands as an important public diplomacy achievement.
In numerous hearings and discussions on public diplomacy,
this committee has consistently heard reports of the value of
foreign exchanges, particularly multi-year student exchanges.
Fostering such exposure for overseas visitors is vital if we
hope to counter the distorted image of the United States that
so many foreign citizens receive through censored or biased
media outlets in their home countries.
Recently I was reminded of the foreign policy impact of
hosting foreign students when I traveled to Georgia and met
with its new President, Michael Saakashvili. President
Saakashvili received his law degree from Columbia University,
where he studied under the Muskie fellowship program. In fact,
almost every member of his cabinet had attended an American
college or university during their academic careers. Some had
come to the United States as part of the State Department's
international visitors program or on a Fulbright or Muskie
fellowship.
The result was that the leadership of an important country
had a personal understanding of the core elements of American
society and governance. Perhaps more importantly, they had an
understanding and appreciation of Americans themselves.
Of the 12.8 million students enrolled in higher education
in the United States during the last academic year, almost
600,000, some 4.6 percent, were foreign undergraduate and
graduate students who were attending school on F-1 visas. These
students contribute almost $12.9 billion annually to the United
States economy. This is roughly equivalent to the amount of
medical equipment and supplies exported annually by the United
States. Thus, higher education functions as a major export
commodity that improves our trade balance.
My home State of Indiana currently is the temporary home of
almost 13,500 students. This population pumps more than $330
million annually into our State's economy.
We also should recognize the important role played in the
United States by talented foreign scientists who work at some
of our most renowned research facilities. For example, about
1,900 foreign scientists who have come to this country on J-1
visas perform groundbreaking research in conjunction with our
own scientists at the National Institutes of Health. They are
contributing not only to the United States economy, but also
the health of Americans.
After the September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress reexamined
visa policy in light of heightened security concerns. We
adopted new visa requirements in the interest of national
security. Today we intend to carefully examine how the security
purposes of those changes are being balanced with our goals
pertaining to foreign students. In particular we want to
determine whether the change in visa procedures are
unnecessarily limiting or deterring students, researchers, and
official visitors from coming to our universities.
One new mechanism is the Student and Exchange Visitor
Information System, known as ``SEVIS.'' This system is used to
verify the location and academic status of international
students. To fund the system, student visa applicants are
charged a $100 fee. In some cases, this fee has been a
financial disincentive for foreign students to apply to
American institutions of higher learning, in part because the
fee is not refunded if the student visa is turned down.
Another recurring concern is the difficulty many students
have in complying with the so-called 214(b) statute, whereby
visa applicants must demonstrate that they are not intending to
emigrate. Few would argue with the intent of the statute, but
prospective students, because of their age and educational
focus, often lack employment and property in their home
countries. Since employment and property are primary indicators
that a visa applicant will return home, student visas sometimes
are delayed or denied even when applications otherwise are in
order.
In spite of the problems associated with visa restrictions,
I understand that the Consular Affairs Bureau at the State
Department is adjudicating student applications more
efficiently than when the new security procedures first took
effect. This progress is due, in part, to greater information-
sharing between the Department of State, the Department of
Homeland Security, and other governmental agencies.
Thanks to Secretary Powell's Diplomatic Readiness
Initiative, we also have been able to fund 350 new consular
positions. In addition, the State Department has instructed
embassies to give students priority when scheduling visa
interviews.
The United States must achieve an effective balance on
student visas. We know that Canada, the United Kingdom, and
Australia are aggressively recruiting many of the same students
who might otherwise come to the United States. Security must
not be compromised, but our government should help our
universities to remain competitive by doing everything it can
to reduce unnecessary delays in evaluating and processing
student visas.
I am pleased to welcome two expert panels to our hearing
today. On the first panel we will hear from: Dr. Martin
Jischke, President of Purdue University; Dr. Adam Herbert,
President of Indiana University; and Dr. Dan Mote, President of
the University of Maryland. The three universities represented
here today are among the leaders in hosting foreign students.
Purdue has the fourth largest number of foreign students among
United States universities, while the University of Maryland
ranks fourteenth and Indiana University ranks twentieth. These
witnesses have thought a great deal about the role of foreign
students at United States universities and how the student visa
process can be improved.
On the second panel we have: Dr. Allan Goodman from the
Institute of International Education, which produces ``Open
Doors,'' an annual study on foreign students coming to the
United States and U.S. students studying abroad; Ms. Catheryn
Cotten, the Director of the International Office at Duke
University, where she has been studying the history and impact
of SEVIS and its predecessor; and Ambassador Ted Kattouf,
President and CEO of AMIDEAST, which specializes in student
exchanges from the Middle East; and Ms. Marlene Johnson, CEO of
Association of International Educators.
We look forward to hearing the insights and recommendations
of our distinguished witnesses. It is a privilege now to greet
the first panel and to ask that you testify in the order that I
introduced you, which would be first of all Dr. Jischke, then
Dr. Herbert, and then Dr. Mote. All of your statements will be
made a part of the record in full and you may proceed as you
wish, either with some of the statement, a summary of it, or
your own recitation. We are delighted to greet you this
morning.
Let me just mention that the hearing started promptly at
9:30, maybe even a tad before the buzzer, because this is a
busy day in the life of the Senate. At 11:30 we are told we
will have the beginning of 16 roll call votes. That will
effectively end the hearing. Senators who are not present now
will be present on the floor voting 16 times to complete the
intelligence bill.
I hope other Senators will join us. I appreciate that you
have come, because this is an important hearing before the
Senate recesses and we wanted to make this contribution to the
committee record.
Dr. Jischke, would you please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN C. JISCHKE, PH.D., PRESIDENT, PURDUE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Jischke. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, staff of the
Foreign Relations Committee: Thank you for this opportunity.
May I say, sir, that I find your opening statement very
encouraging and I want to thank you for the observations you
have made already this morning.
Today nearly 600,000 international students are attending
universities in the United States. Purdue enrolls nearly 5,000
of these students from 130 different nations of the world.
Purdue has the largest international student population among
U.S. public universities. We have a history of international
enrollment that dates back nearly 100 years.
I believe international education holds enormous promise in
fulfilling our greatest hopes for the 21st century.
International education exchange promotes understanding and
friendships. When we provide an opportunity for the world's
best and brightest to study in America, we give them a chance
to understand our values and our way of life. Students come
from other parts of the world, they come to our campuses and
are exposed to our Nation and our people. They come to
understand our culture and society better.
Our international students are exceptional people who will
grow to become leaders in their home nations. U.S. relations
around the world in the next 50 years are being nurtured at
college campuses such as Purdue all across our Nation today.
American students, faculty, and staff also benefit
tremendously through interaction with people from a variety of
backgrounds and cultures. International educational exchange
programs open a door to the world for our own students. It is a
door of understanding. In the years ahead, American young
people will live and work in an increasingly globalized world
where they will need to interact with a wide variety of people,
cultures, and customs. International enrollment at our campuses
prepares our American students for their future. It also helps
to break down stereotypes and misinformation that are the
breeding grounds of intolerance.
Among many prominent Purdue graduates who were
international students is Dr. Marwan Jamil Muasher. Dr. Muasher
is the Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs. During a recent
talk at Purdue, he mentioned that 50 percent of the Jordanian
cabinet are U.S.-educated. This has promoted understanding and
better relations between our two countries.
Since September 11, 2001, the growth of international
students coming to the United States has slowed considerably.
We believe that this year international enrollment at U.S.
universities will actually drop below the fall 2003 level. This
will be the first decline in about 30 years. In the data
collected earlier this year for all of 2004, the 25 research
universities that enrolled the most international students
reported significant declines in international graduate
applications. Nine of these universities indicated a decrease
of 30 percent or more. The number of international students
enrolled at Purdue this fall is 4,921. That is down from 5,094
the year before. This is, in fact, the first drop in
international enrollment we have seen at Purdue in more than
three decades.
We believe there are several reasons for this decline.
First, the entire student visa process is causing students to
look elsewhere for international education. In some cases the
problems are quite real, in some cases they are only perceived.
But the impact can be seen on our campuses today. In a fall
2003 survey, institutions responding indicated a 49-percent
increase in the number of visa delays for new and continuing
international undergraduate students. These delays caused
students to miss the start of classes and become hopelessly
behind. In some cases, continuing students fall so far behind
that they had to drop their courses.
At Purdue we have lost more than 100 prospective students
due to visa delays since 2002. When one of our continuing
students returned home to China, it was more than 5 months
before his application to return was approved. By the time he
was able to get back to West Lafayette, his wife in West
Lafayette had already delivered their first child.
Visa delays, though, are not the only reason for declining
international enrollment in the United States. It is a
combination of factors and visa delays that deliver the final
blow that persuades students to study elsewhere. First,
international enrollment in the United States is in decline
today because there are more options available to these top
students at home. Asian countries are investing more than ever
before in higher education.
Second, as you have noted, sir, American universities are
facing significant increased competition for the top
international students from institutions in countries such as
Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The number
of Chinese and Indian students going to universities in
Australia last fall was up 25 percent. The number of students
from India was up 31 percent. Great Britain saw a rise in
Chinese and Indian students of 36 and 16 percent respectively.
When I received the invitation to speak at this hearing
this morning, I met with a group of international student
leaders from the Purdue campus. This is what they told me. The
new U.S. visa application process is long and complicated and
often unpredictable. It can cause delays and in some cases
significant problems.
However, our students also tell me the U.S. visa
application process is not the only factor that is causing
large numbers of students to reconsider study in the United
States. Most frequently mentioned was slow growth in the U.S.
economy.
On May 12, 2004, 24 representatives of American
organizations of higher education, science, and engineering
drafted a series of problems and recommendations concerning the
international student visa process. Senator Lugar, I would like
to ask that this document, ``Statement and Recommendations on
Visa Problems Harming America's Science, Economic and Security
Interests,'' be entered into the committee official record.
The Chairman. It will be placed in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement and Recommendations on Visa Problems Harming America's
Scientific, Economic, and Security Interests
We, the undersigned American organizations of higher education,
science, and engineering are strongly committed to dedicating our
combined energies and expertise to enhancing homeland and national
security. Our nation's colleges and universities and scientific and
technical organizations are the engines of new knowledge, discoveries,
technologies, and training that power the country's research enterprise
and contribute greatly to economic and national security. Moreover,
they are important hubs of international scientific and technical
exchanges, and they play a vital role in facilitating educational and
cultural exchanges that help to spread our nation's democratic values.
We strongly support the federal government's efforts to establish
new visa policies and procedures to bolster security; however, we
believe that some of the new procedures and policies, along with a lack
of sufficient resources, have made the visa issuance process
inefficient, lengthy, and opaque. We are deeply concerned that this has
led to a number of unintended consequences detrimental to science,
higher education, and the nation.
In particular, there is increasing evidence that visa-related
problems are discouraging and preventing the best and brightest
international students, scholars, and scientists from studying and
working in the United States, as well as attending academic and
scientific conferences here and abroad. If action is not taken soon to
improve the visa system, the misperception that the United States does
not welcome international students, scholars, and scientists will grow,
and they may not make our nation their destination of choice now and in
the future. The damage to our nation's higher education and scientific
enterprises, economy, and national security would be irreparable. The
United States cannot hope to maintain its present scientific and
economic leadership position if it becomes isolated from the rest of
the world.
We are resolute in our support of a secure visa system and believe
that a more efficient system is a more secure one. We also are
confident that it is possible to have a visa system that is timely and
transparent, that provides for thorough reviews of visa applicants, and
that still welcomes the brightest minds in the world. It is not a
question of balancing science and security, as some have suggested.
These priorities are not mutually exclusive; to the contrary, they
complement each other, and each is vital to the other. Indeed, in the
near term, some international scientists and engineers are directly
contributing towards helping to win the war on terrorism. In the long
run, a robust network of global interactions is essential to winning
this war. Our nation needs a visa system that does not hinder such
international exchange and cooperation.
The Departments of State and Homeland Security have responded to
some of our concerns by taking steps to make the visa process less
cumbersome and more transparent. However, serious problems remain, and
it is in the hope of resolving these issues collaboratively that we
offer the following recommendations:
Problem: Repetitive security checks that cause lengthy visa
issuance delays.
Recommendation: Extend the validity of Visas Mantis security
clearances for international students, scholars, and scientists from
the current one-year time period to the duration of their course of
study or academic appointment. When those who have received a favorable
Security Advisory Opinion from Visas Mantis apply to renew their visas,
consular officers could confirm that the applicants have not changed
their program of study or research since issuance of their original
clearances. This would eliminate a redundant procedure that sometimes
causes unnecessary delays and hardships.
Problem: Inefficient visa renewal process that causes lengthy
delays.
Recommendation: Establish a timely process by which exchange
visitors holding F and J visas can revalidate their visas, or at least
begin the visa renewal process, before they leave the United States to
attend academic and scientific conferences, visit family, or attend to
personal business. A visa renewal process that allows individuals to at
least initiate the process before leaving the country would greatly
diminish, and in many cases eliminate, lengthy visa delays, and it
would allow them to continue their studies and work uninterrupted.
Problem: Lack of transparency and priority processing in the visa
system.
Recommendation: Create a mechanism by which visa applicants and
their sponsors may inquire about the status of pending visa
applications, and establish a process by which applications pending for
more than 30 days are given priority processing. Implementing these
measures would greatly add to the transparency of the visa process and
would help to ensure that applications do not get buried at the bottom
of the pile or lost.
Problem: Inconsistent treatment of visa applications.
Recommendation: Provide updated training of consular staff,
establish clear protocols for initiating a Visas Mantis review, and
ensure that screening tools are being used in the most appropriate
manner. We recognize that the government is pursuing efforts to enhance
training, and we encourage this. Consular staff need the best available
tools and training to perform their vital responsibilities. Additional
training and guidance for consular staff could greatly enhance security
while simultaneously reducing the number of applications submitted for
Visas Mantis reviews, thereby alleviating potential delays.
Problem: Repetitive processing of visa applications for those with
a proven track record.
Recommendation: Revise visa reciprocity agreements between the
United States and key sending countries, such as China and Russia, to
extend the duration of visas each country grants citizens of the other,
thereby reducing the number of times that visiting international
students, scholars, and scientists must renew their visas. We recognize
that renegotiating bilateral agreements is a time-consuming process,
and we believe it should be pursued as a long-term measure that allows
the government to focus its visa screening resources by reducing the
number of visa renewals that must be processed.
Problem: Potential new impediment to international students,
scholars, and scientists entering the U.S. created by proposed SEVIS
fee collection mechanism.
Recommendation: Implement a fee collection system for the Student
and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) that allows for a
variety of simple fee payment methods that are quick, safe, and secure,
including payment after the individual arrives in the United States.
Additional funding and staffing resources across the agencies
involved in visa adjudications are essential to the above
recommendations and to an effective visa system. Congress and the
Administration should ensure that adequate resources are provided.
We are committed to working with the federal government to
construct a visa system that protects the nation from terrorists while
enhancing our nation's security not only by barring inappropriate
visitors but also by enabling the brightest and most qualified
international students, scholars, and scientists to participate fully
in the U.S. higher education and research enterprises. We believe that
implementing the recommendations above will help to make this goal a
reality.
Nils Hasselmo, President, Association of American Universities
Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences
C. Peter Magrath, President, National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges
Harvey V. Fineberg, M.D., Ph.D., President, Institute of Medicine
Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the
Advancement of Science
David Ward, President, American Council on Education
Wm. A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering
Marlene M. Johnson, Executive Director and CEO, NAFSA: Association of
International Educators
Charles P. Casey, President, American Chemical Society
Helen R. Quinn, President, American Physical Society
George R. Boggs, President and CEO, American Association of Community
Colleges
Felice Levine, Executive Director, American Educational Research
Association
Debra W. Stewart, President, Council of Graduate Schools
David A. Eastmond, Ph.D., President, Environmental Mutagen Society
John W. Steadman, Ph.D., P.E., President, IEEE-USA
Joan L. Bybee, President, Linguistic Society of America
James H. Nelson, President, American Association of Physics Teachers
Thomas E. Shenk, President, American Society for Microbiology
Katharina Phillips, President, Council on Governmental Relations
Robert D. Wells, Ph.D., President, The Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
Eugene G. Arthurs, Executive Director, SPIE--The International Society
for Optical Engineering
David L. Warren, President, The National Association of Independent
Colleges and Universities
Alyson Reed, Executive Director, National Postdoctoral Association
Lynne Sebastian, Ph.D., RPA, President, Society for American
Archaeology
Bettie Sue Masters, President, American Society for Biochemistry and
Molecular Biology
Additional Endorsing Organizations
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
American Philosophical Society
Association of International Education Administrators
Institute of International Education
National Academic Consortium for Homeland Security
American Astronomical Society
American Psychological Association
Infectious Diseases Society of America
Optical Society of America
Dr. Jischke. Thank you. I encourage the committee to
seriously consider these recommendations concerning visa policy
reform.
The decline in international students will first be felt
most severely at American universities that do not have the
same recognition abroad as institutions such as Purdue. But if
the trend is not reversed it will eventually grow to weaken all
our institutions, including Purdue. The loss of these
outstanding international scholars will not only be a major
economic blow to our country, I believe it also will work
against our long-term interest to promote national security and
improve international relations, friendships, and
understanding. It will result in a loss of academic quality.
Universities and our government must cooperate to meet the
challenge of maintaining strong international programs for a
better tomorrow while at the same time ensuring our national
security today. This is a challenging task, but this country
never balked at important issues because they were just
challenging.
Thank you for this opportunity to visit with you today
about this very important issue. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Jischke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Martin C. Jischke, President, Purdue
University
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Biden, members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you
today about an issue that I believe is vitally important, not only to
students and higher education but to our international relations, our
nation and our national security.
Today nearly 600,000 international students are attending
universities in the United States.
Purdue University enrolls nearly 5,000 of these students from 130
different nations. Purdue has the largest international student
population among U.S. public universities. We have a history of
international enrollment that dates back nearly 100 years and Purdue
enjoys a particularly long and strong relationship with China, Taiwan,
Korea, Hong Kong and India.
As we meet this morning, there are more than 2,000 students from
China, India and South Korea alone studying on our West Lafayette
campus.
International students are good for our economy. In 2002/2003,
international students contributed almost $12.9 billion to the U.S.
economy. In the state of Indiana alone, the amount is $332,576,169.
But in a larger sense, I believe international education holds
enormous promise in fulfilling our greatest hopes for the 21st century.
International educational exchange promotes understanding and
friendships. When we provide an opportunity for the world's best and
brightest to study in America, we give them a chance to understand our
values and way of life. Students from other parts of the world who come
to our campuses are exposed to our nation and people. They come to
understand our culture and society better.
Our international students are exceptional people, who will grow to
become leaders in their home nations. U.S. relations around the world
in the next 50 years are being nurtured at college campuses such as
Purdue across our nation today.
American students, faculty and staff also benefit tremendously
through interaction with people from a variety of backgrounds and
cultures. International educational exchange programs open a door to
the world for our students. It is a door of understanding.
In the years ahead, American young people will live and work in an
increasingly globalized world where they will need to interact with a
wide variety of people, cultures and customs.
International enrollment on our campuses prepares our students for
their future. It also helps to break down stereotypes and
misinformation that are the breeding grounds of intolerance.
Among many prominent Purdue graduates who were international
students is Dr. Marwan Jamil Muasher. Dr. Muasher is the Jordanian
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
During a recent talk at Purdue, he mentioned that 50 percent of the
Jordanian cabinet is U.S.-educated. This has promoted understanding and
better relations between our two countries.
He has also expressed concern that the delays in the U.S. student
visa application process are discouraging Jordanians from studying
here. In fact, we have experienced a decline in students coming to
Purdue from Jordan.
Another Purdue international graduate is Patrick Wang, of Hong
Kong, CEO and chairman of Johnson Electric, a world leader in the
manufacture of micro motors. Mr. Wang is among a group of international
graduates who are helping us educate students today.
Yet another is Allen Chao, Chairman and CEO, Watson Pharmaceuticals
Inc. in Corona, California.
Purdue graduate Anna Pao Sohmen is a business, political, education
and cultural leader in Hong Kong.
Leaders from throughout the world have studied at U.S.
universities.
A few who have been influenced by their international experiences
are:
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, who studied at
Macalester College in Minnesota and Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Boston;
King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo of the Philippines, who studied at Georgetown
University.
Since September 11, 2001, the growth of international students
coming to the United Sates has slowed considerably.
Official national enrollment data for this fall is not yet
available. But we believe that this year, international enrollment at
U.S. universities will actually drop below the 2003 level.
This will be the first decline in about 30 years.
In data collected earlier this year for fall 2004, the 25 research
universities that enroll the most international students reported
significant declines in international graduate applications.
Nine indicated a decrease of 30 percent or more. Six reported a
decrease of between 11 percent and 30 percent.
In September the Council of Graduate Schools reported a decline of
18 percent in offers of admissions for international graduate students
from 2003 to 2004. The largest declines in admissions were from China,
down 34 percent, India, down 19 percent, and Korea, down 12 percent.
The number of international students enrolled at Purdue this fall
is 4,921. That is down from 5,094 one year earlier.
Although a drop of 173 students might not seem great, we are very
concerned. This is, in fact, the first drop in international enrollment
we have seen at Purdue in three decades.
We are concerned about what this means on our campus and what it
means for our students. We are concerned about the national trend in
declining enrollment. We are concerned about the impact this will have
on education and our nation.
We believe there are several reasons for this decline.
First, the entire student visa process is causing students to look
elsewhere for international education. In some cases the problems are
real. In some cases they are only perceived. But the impact can be seen
on our campuses today.
In a fall of 2003 survey, institutions responding indicated a 49
percent increase in the number of visa delays for new and continuing
international undergraduate students.
These delays cause students to miss the start of classes and become
hopelessly behind. In some cases continuing students fall so far behind
that they have to drop their courses.
At Purdue, we have lost more than 100 prospective students since
2002 due to visa delays. On average, we are losing 20 students per
spring and fall semester. The largest loss was in the fall of 2002.
We had one student from China who went home for a visit in the
middle of his studies. It was more than a year before his application
to return here was approved.
When another continuing student returned home to China, it was more
than five months before his application to return was approved. By the
time he was able to get back to West Lafayette, his wife had already
delivered their child.
The picture is not entirely negative. Overall, the SEVIS system is
technically functional and is improving. It is demonstrating how
universities are doing their part to help with homeland security.
But issues with visa delays and security clearances remain the
weakest link in our work.
Visa delays are not the only reason for declining international
enrollment in the United States. It is a combination of factors, and
visa delays deliver the final blow that persuades students to study
elsewhere.
First--international enrollment in the United States is in decline
today because there are more options available to these top students.
Asian countries are investing more than ever before in higher
education, especially in graduate programs in science and technology.
The quality of those programs is rapidly improving, and experience
tells us these nations' economies should improve in the years ahead as
a result.
One of the top priorities for Taiwan is to allocate the equivalent
of roughly $1.6 billion U.S. dollars over five years to a selected
group of universities.
This is being done as an incentive for them to reach--or draw
closer to--the caliber of major American research institutions.
China, Hong Kong, and South Korea are developing similar strategies
to keep their talent at home or attract it back from abroad.
Second, American universities are facing enormous competition for
international students from institutions in Great Britain, Australia,
New Zealand and Canada.
The number of Chinese and Indian students going to universities in
Australia last fall was up by 25 percent. The number of students from
India was up 31 percent. Great Britain saw a rise in Chinese and Indian
students of 36 percent and 16 percent, respectively.
The European Union is creating a European Area of Higher Education
featuring U.S.-style degrees offered in English. One of the express
aims of this project is to compete with the U.S. for the world's best
and brightest students.
When I received an invitation to speak at this hearing today, I met
with a group of international student leaders from the Purdue campus. I
asked them about the decline in international enrollment and what they
and their friends and associates believe are the reasons.
This is what they told me:
The new U.S. visa application process is long and
complicated.
It can cause delays and in some instances significant
problems.
Before September 11, 2001, the visa was usually issued ``on the
spot'' or in a matter of days. Now it is a matter of weeks, sometimes
months, due to security and background checks.
We all know that security and background checks are needed. But
some checks take an inordinate amount of time.
However, our students tell us the U.S. visa application process is
not the only factor that is causing large numbers of students to
reconsider study in the United States. Our students listed other core
reasons for the decline in international enrollment.
Most frequently mentioned was the U.S. economy. The U.S. economy
has struggled the past four years and many international students have
trouble finding even internships during their studies.
Many American companies in the high-tech sector will not consider
hiring international students as interns.
Other statements we heard included:
Governments that support the education of their students are
concerned about visa problems interrupting studies and wasting
their investment;
The cost of living and studying in the United States is
higher than in other nations; and
A general decline in the U.S. image and prestige, especially
among European and Middle East students.
Similar statements came from Purdue recruiters who have just
returned from interviews with prospective undergraduate students and
their high school counselors in Asia, South and Central America.
At Purdue we are responding to all of this.
We have worked to combat the visa delays by encouraging prospective
students to apply for admission earlier--
By encouraging our departments to make admission decisions
earlier;
By encouraging prospective students to confirm attendance
earlier.
If prospective students and departments act earlier, Purdue's
Office of International Students and Scholars is able to issue the
immigration document earlier.
We have also encouraged foreign governments and various agencies
that financially sponsor students to make their student selections
earlier so that there will be enough time for securing the visa.
For the long term, we are devising new recruitment strategies at
both the undergraduate and graduate levels to attract international
students to Purdue.
We are working on the perceptions held by many overseas families
and prospective students, as well as many foreign government officials,
that their students will not receive student visas in a timely fashion
to commence studies.
On May 12, 2004, 24 representatives of American organizations of
higher education, science and engineering drafted a series of problems
and recommendations concerning the international student visa process.
Senator Lugar, I would like to ask that this document, ``Statement
and Recommendation on Visa Problems Harming America's Science, Economic
and Security Interests,'' be entered into the committee official
record.
I encourage this committee to consider seriously these
recommendations concerning visa policy reform.
In closing, let me offer you some specific recommendations that
have emerged from our experiences at Purdue:
1. Focus efforts on those who require special screening.
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.
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.
Avoid repetitive processing of those who temporarily leave
the United States.
Institute a presumption that a security clearance is valid
for the duration of status or program, assuming no status
violations. Any necessary reviews within this period should be
fast-tracked.
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.
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: (a) The sending countries could agree to pre-screen
applicants in order to facilitate their citizens' entry into
the U.S.; (b) the sending universities could provide identity
verification under agreements executed with consulates; and (c)
the State Department could use its own overseas advising
centers to ensure that all necessary documents are in order
before applications are sent on to the consulates.
2. Create a timely, transparent and predictable visa process.
The White House should institute standard guidelines for inter-
agency reviews of visa applications:
Establish a 15-day standard for responses to the State
Department from other agencies in the inter-agency clearance
process.
Implement a 30-day standard for the completion of the entire
inter-agency 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 in box.
Establish a special review process to resolve any cases not
decided within 60 days.
Make ground rules predictable by imposing them
prospectively, not on those already in the application
pipeline.
3. The validity of Visas Mantis security clearances should be
extended for international students, scholars, and scientists from the
current one-year time period to the duration of their course of study
or academic appointment. This would prevent the need for repetitive
security checks that cause visa issuance delays.
4. A timely process should be established by which exchange
visitors holding F (student) and J (scholars/scientists) visas can
revalidate their visas, or at least begin the visa renewal process,
before they leave the United States to attend academic and scientific
conferences, visit family, or attend to personal business.
5. Visa reciprocity agreements should be revised between the United
States and key sending countries, such as China and Russia, to extend
the duration of visas each country grants citizens of the other,
thereby reducing the number of times that visiting international
students, scholars, and scientists must renew their visas.
In this, we obviously need to work with the countries involved; it
is not an issue that can be resolved entirely by the United States
alone.
6. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department
should continue to move forward on a proposed pilot study in China and
India in which the State Department would collect the SEVIS fee
directly from international students and scholars in those countries.
This is a method of payment strongly supported by the academic
community.
7. Provide the necessary human and financial resources for security
and background checks, and manage within them.
The decline in international students is first being felt most
severely at American universities that do not have the same name
recognition abroad as institutions such as Purdue.
But if the trend is not reversed, it will eventually grow to weaken
all of our institutions, including Purdue.
While we appreciate and support the need for security in this
process, the loss of outstanding international scholars not only will
be a major economic blow to our country. I believe it also will work
against our long-term efforts to promote national security and to
improve international relations, friendships and understanding.
Furthermore, it will have a negative impact on the quality of
education at U.S. universities. International enrollment not only
improves our learning environment, these top students challenge our
American students to stretch their own abilities. They contribute
significantly to research.
Universities and our government must cooperate to meet the
challenge of maintaining strong international exchanges for a better
tomorrow while at the same time ensuring our national security today.
This is a challenging task.
But this country has never balked at important issues just because
they were challenging.
Thank you for this opportunity to talk with you today about this
most important issue.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, President Jischke.
We have been joined by Senator Lamar Alexander, who in
addition to being a great Senator was a great university
president. I wonder if, Lamar, you have any opening comment
that you would like to make at this stage.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am
grateful to you for the hearing. It is a tremendously important
topic. I think I will reserve my comments until we have
question time, but thank you for the opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir.
President Herbert, would you please proceed with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF ADAM W. HERBERT, PH.D., PRESIDENT, INDIANA
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Herbert. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
honored to take part in this hearing that is focused on a
matter of vital significance for U.S. higher education and also
for the strategic interests of our country.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to begin by saying that the
higher education leaders in Indiana particularly appreciate the
contributions that you have made, obviously to U.S. foreign
policy, but also to advancing knowledge through the exchange of
international students and also scholars.
Indiana University has a long history of rising to the
challenges that have resulted from a wide array of world
upheavals. One of my predecessors, Herman B. Wells, who was
President of Indiana University from 1938 to 1962, foresaw the
post-World War II leadership role that our country would assume
and understood its very important implications for higher
education. He created the infrastructure that has enabled
Indiana University to respond to changing world conditions over
the past 50 years.
In 1958, for example, President Wells saw the need for
greater knowledge about and engagement in the politics,
economics, and languages of the Soviet Union. The university
took the courageous step to establish the Russian and East
European Institute, despite the fear of communism among many in
the State of Indiana. This institute has produced outstanding
academic specialists and civil servants for almost 50 years,
including U.S. ambassadors and other foreign service personnel.
IU has developed many other academic programs and research
institutes devoted to the study of major regions of the world
over the past 50 years. Today our university has 14 major
international area centers that specialize in such regions as
Africa, East Asia, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America,
Russia, and Western Europe. We have a potential course
inventory of some 80 foreign languages for which we can provide
instruction. Included among these languages are ones that are
least commonly taught, but are spoken in regions vital to U.S.
interests. Just 1 year after 9-11, IU's intellectual depth,
resources, and human capacity in Central Asia enabled it to
respond to a changed world by establishing a center to teach
languages spoken in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
This center is supported by Title 6 funds of the Higher
Education Act.
International students and faculty are significant
contributors to our university's global prominence. They
enhance the diversity of the student population and add vibrant
intellectual and cultural dimensions to the life of the campus
and community. Every day person to person interactions have
taken place between American and international students and
faculty.
There are more than 4,400 international students on our
campuses. They come from 130 countries. Some 12,500 visiting
scholars are at the university each year. They bring
substantial knowledge and skills to our classrooms,
laboratories, and research programs. They also help us to
collaborate with scholars, universities, and institutions
throughout the world.
In the aftermath of 9-11, universities and colleges have
had to make major changes in their reporting and documentation
of international students and scholars, as you indicated, Mr.
Chairman. IU has addressed the requirements of the Student and
Exchange Visitor Information System. We have invested
significant human and fiscal resources to meet them in a timely
fashion. We are developing a technical infrastructure and also
innovative interface between SEVIS and the University Student
Information System that may serve as a national model.
SEVIS has become a part of the university's day to day
operations. Our university is concerned, however, that other
efforts to strengthen homeland security may have had unintended
negative consequences on the visa process. Despite recent State
Department efforts to lessen delays in this process, Indiana
University's international students and scholars continue to
experience difficulties. These processing delays continue to
discourage international students and visiting scholars coming
to our country.
At IU we have witnessed an unprecedented decline in
applications from international students. This year on the
Bloomington campus, graduate applications fell by 21 percent
and undergraduate applications by 14 percent. Total
international student enrollment has declined for the first
time on record.
With regard to countries of origin, during the past 5 years
IU's enrollments from Muslim and Middle Eastern countries have
declined 22 percent. For fall 2004, these enrollments declined
by 13.2 percent over the previous year. Enrollments from the
five leading countries of origin at the university--South
Korea, China, India, Taiwan, and Japan--have declined by 11.6
percent for fall of this year over last year. The numbers of
students from China fell from 4,405 in fall 2003 to 357 in fall
2004.
These trends will have growing negative consequences for
the university as a whole. A number of our international area
centers, departments, research programs, and professional
schools depend on the continued presence of international
students and scholars. For example, over 30 percent of
instructors, research specialists, and technical staff in our
school of medicine, which is the second largest in the country,
are from abroad. The school's research programs will be
seriously impacted if they are no longer able to attract
international scientists.
These are serious problems confronting not only Indiana
University, but other higher education institutions throughout
the State. IU is responding to our decline in the number of
international students by enhancing the information and
resources that are available to students via the World Wide
Web. We are engaging alumni and friends overseas to assist us
more directly with recruitment. We are providing more extensive
guidance to prospects and also scholars in the visa process. We
are allocating significant resources to help them navigate that
process and also offering financial incentives to attract
outstanding students by maximizing the use of our scholarship
funds.
While these campus efforts may have some impact, they will
not be sufficient to address the growing problems that I have
described. We believe that there is a critical need to
reexamine current visa policies. At IU we are especially
concerned that our students continue to face bottlenecks at
consular offices around the world. It is also evident that the
90-second visa interview contributes to these delays. The
critical question is whether these interviews are really
necessary for the vast majority of legitimate applicants.
We also believe that students and scholars who have
successfully received entry visas should not be required to go
through the same degree of scrutiny when they need to leave and
reenter the country.
Finally, we believe that providing resources for additional
consular officials would certainly help in reducing the backlog
in processing these applications.
Mr. Chairman, several of the outstanding academic programs
that we have worked to build at IU are at risk of experiencing
major problems because of the visa issues I have outlined. Many
of these programs further national strategic interests and I
would just emphasize that what is happening at IU is occurring
at colleges and universities throughout the country. Too many
intellectual ties that cut across borders and unite peoples are
being severed. This is a moment for decisive action. We must
return our country to its preeminence in international
education.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Herbert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Adam W. Herbert, President, Indiana
University
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I am honored to participate
in this important hearing that is focused on a matter of vital
significance for U.S. higher education and for the strategic interests
of our country.
Mr. Chairman, our higher education leaders throughout Indiana
particularly appreciate the contributions you have made to U.S. foreign
policy and to advancing knowledge through the exchange of international
students and scholars. Your insights and sensitivity to international
issues have brought great distinction to the state and nation.
My testimony this morning will address current visa policies
affecting international students and researchers. I will do so through
the lens of Indiana University and our experiences on eight campuses in
coping with and responding to the challenges of the post-9/11 world.
Our experiences mirror those of most large research institutions that
share our national responsibility for international education.
Indiana University: Responding to a Changing World
Indiana University has a long history of responding to fundamental
challenges caused by major world changes. One of my predecessors,
Herman B Wells, IU president from 1938 to 1962 and university
chancellor until 2000, foresaw the post-World War II leadership role
that the United States had to assume. He also anticipated its
implications for U.S. higher education and laid the foundations for
what Indiana University is today. The essence of so much of his
thinking still resonates with us. In 1958, he wrote: ``We must maintain
a concern for the development and needs of the world beyond our borders
. . . great universities such as Indiana University offer the most
promising possibility for putting this concern into action.''
His abiding commitment to the free flow and exchange of ideas and
people of all nations, his realization that international students and
scholars were essential to a vibrant diversity on campus, his
insistence on nurturing lively debate on controversial issues of the
day--all are as relevant today as they were almost fifty years ago. Our
university remains a place where students from even the smallest towns
of Indiana can discover the wider world, meet people of different
histories, ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs, and cultural norms,
and learn about the responsibilities of global engagement.
Indiana University: An institution with Unique International Strengths
As early as the 1940s, Indiana University began building an
infrastructure capable of addressing the nation's needs in
international expertise and foreign languages. At the start of the Cold
War, IU established a special training program to teach the U.S. Army
such languages as Russian and Finnish. At the end of World War II, we
recruited promising European scholars to come to IU. In 1958, we took
the courageous step to establish the Russian and East European
Institute amidst widespread fears of communism.
The vision of IU being a global institution continued to be
realized throughout subsequent decades of expansion. It has been
reflected in the number of international research centers and language
departments established, the range of overseas study opportunities
provided and the abundance of international majors, minors,
certificates, and concentrations made available throughout the IU
curriculum.
IU currently has 14 international and area studies centers, some of
which have received continuous funding from Title VI of the Higher
Education Act since its inception. Collectively, they offer hundreds of
international studies courses in nearly every humanities and social
science discipline and in the professional schools.
Out of a potential inventory of some 80 foreign languages, IU
offers almost 50 each year on a regular basis, many at advanced levels.
Included are less commonly taught languages spoken in regions of
strategic importance to the United States. Among these languages are
Azeri, Haitian Creole, Hindi, Georgian, Hausa, Mongolian, Persian,
Romanian, Tibetan and Uzbek.
IU has long been a national leader in providing quality study
abroad opportunities for its students in almost every discipline and
school (tropical biology in Costa Rica, art and archaeology in Greece,
business and economics in the Netherlands, language and culture in
Germany).
IU's Department of Central Eurasian Studies, established more than
40 years ago, is unique in the nation in having a doctoral degree
program. Just one year after 9/11, IU's reputation in Central Asian
expertise enabled it to respond to a changed world by establishing a
center to teach languages spoken in countries such as Afghanistan and
Kazakhstan. This center also is supported by Title VI funds.
IU has amassed international holdings in libraries, archives and
museums that are among the strongest collections nationally. These
collections have been enhanced by numerous Indiana University Press
publications--700 titles currently in print. These publications attest
to IU's contributions to world knowledge in such areas as Africa,
Russia and Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. They focus on such
disciplines as history, economics, politics, folklore and art history.
Further reflective of our global reach, we are particularly proud
that IU has negotiated almost 400 formal affiliations and exchanges
with universities, research institutes and organizations from around
the world.
Finally, recent institution-building grants won through IU's Center
for International Education and Development Assistance have established
IU as a key presence in a number of countries, including Azerbaijan,
Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia and Namibia, among others.
All of these opportunities encourage IU students to participate in
some form of international experience or activity while at the
university.
The Contribution of International Students
Indiana University could not have attained its position as a
leading institution in international education without the presence and
continual influx of students from around the world. Their presence
enhances the diversity of the student population. They add vibrant
intellectual and cultural dimensions to the life of the campus and
community. Every day, interactions take place between American students
and international students from some 130 countries. These students find
themselves working together on classroom projects, living together in
our residence halls, studying together in our libraries, enjoying
campus life in student gatherings, or attending the numerous
intercultural and social events on campus. They form friendships that
are natural bridges for crossing the cultural divides that too often
separate people and nations. These formative friendships often last far
beyond the university setting and may lead to relationships that will
be of long-term benefit to the United States.
International students at IU bring hard-earned knowledge and skills
to our classrooms, laboratories and research programs by assisting in
the instruction of many basic courses. Our science departments would be
seriously understaffed without them. Where so much of scientific
research is accomplished through teamwork and worldwide collaboration,
these students have proven to be valuable assets. In language and
culture classes, they provide an authenticity and first-hand
credibility that cannot be replicated.
It has been frequently noted that international students who obtain
their education in the United States or Europe return home to become
leaders in government, business, the media and academia, where they may
have opportunities to influence national policies. Among IU
international alumni who have achieved national stature at home are
Flerida Romero, former supreme court justice of the Philippines; Amara
Raksasataya, dean and rector of the National Institute of
Administration in Thailand; and Tamara Beruchashvili, former minister
for trade and economic development of Georgia and current liaison to
the European Union.
The Contribution of International Faculty and Visiting Scholars
IU's international faculty and visiting scholars make valuable
contributions to the excellence and scope of the university's research
mission. The synergy of shared intellectual activity forms the basis
for many scientific, business and cultural collaborations and
partnerships. These interactions also may lead to the development of
new study abroad programs or other types of exchanges between IU and
foreign institutions.
At IU, several projects owe their success to collaborations
fostered by affiliations, exchanges and external development grants and
contracts. With federal funding, the School of Public and Environmental
Affairs brought the first-ever delegation of parliamentarians from
Ukraine to the U.S. on a study visit. That visit became the basis of a
multi-year exchange project to help the Ukraine write its constitution
and build a more democratic and representative legislature. The
Parliamentary Development Project, now in its twelfth year, has
produced a steady flow of exchanges between professors and
parliamentarians. It also has enabled Ukrainian students obtain four
masters and three doctoral degrees from IU.
For the past decade, IU's School of Medicine has provided training
and staffing for primary health care in Kenya through rotations of IU
and Kenyan doctors from Moi University Training and Referral Hospital.
The program recently received a multi-million dollar federal grant to
develop HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention programs in Western Kenya.
IU's Center for the Study of Languages from the Central Asian
Region was able to attract qualified language developers from four
Central Asian nations because of the extensive network of contacts that
had been developed by faculty who are experts in that region. These
networks also enabled junior faculty and researchers from the region to
apply for U.S. faculty development fellowships to study at IU
Bloomington for short periods.
In other areas within the university, countless international
visitors are invited each year to present papers at international
conferences held at IU. They participate in lecture series or perform
at cultural events. The long list of such visitors has included former
heads of states, ambassadors and Nobel laureates.
Universities thrive on the presence of international students and
scholars who embody their diverse cultures and are their countries'
unsung cultural ambassadors. When they leave the United States, that
role is often reversed. They take back a piece of the ``American way of
life,'' and many become strong supporters of U.S. policy who are able
to explain American positions and opinions. These individuals are a
significant foreign policy asset for our nation. They represent
valuable human capital to draw on in pursuit of the larger goal of
promoting international understanding and world peace.
New Challenges for International Students and Scholars
In the aftermath of 9/11, U.S. colleges and universities have been
called upon to make major changes in the reporting and documentation of
international students and scholars. IU has responded to this
challenge. We have worked cooperatively with the federal government in
implementing the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System
(SEVIS). To do so, we have allocated new resources, shifted existing
resources and reorganized the duties and responsibilities of staff.
SEVIS represents a major shift from a paper-based system of
tracking international students and visiting scholars to automated
computer tracking. We recognize and appreciate the need for an
electronic solution. While improvements and enhancements are still
needed, we believe that SEVIS supports the flow of legitimate students
and scholars by helping to identify those seeking to enter the U.S.
under false pretenses.
We are concerned, however, that the federal government's
understandable efforts to strengthen security initiatives through new
visa policies and procedures have had unintended consequences. Most
significantly, obtaining a visa has become a roadblock to U.S. higher
education. Despite recent U.S. State Department efforts to alleviate
this problem, we continue to hear from students and scholars that the
process is bottlenecked and difficult to navigate. As a result, these
problems are discouraging, and they are preventing significant numbers
of international students and scholars from studying and working in the
United States.
The Effect on International Student Enrollments
It might be useful at this point to provide the committee a general
overview of the current situation on a national level. A total of
586,323 international students were studying in the U.S. in 2002-03,
representing 4.6% of the total U.S. college and university student
population. This total represented an increase of just 0.6% over 2001-
02 numbers, the smallest annual increase since the mid-l990s.
Unfortunately, 2002-03 brought to an end a previous two-year trend
of strong growth (6.4% in 2000-01 and 6.4% again in 2001-02). While
national figures for 2003-04 and 2004-05 are not yet available,
indications are that we will see even more dramatic declines. According
to a recent survey conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools, there
was a 28% decline in international graduate applications and an 18%
decline in international graduate admits nationwide for fall 2004.
By comparison, other countries have recognized the value of these
students and have begun to recruit them aggressively. In many cases,
U.S. restrictive visa policies are used as a marketing tool to promote
study in destinations other than the U.S. The number of foreign
students studying in Australia has risen twelve-fold in two decades;
Canada has more than tripled the number of foreign students that it had
20 years ago. For Australia, those increases now mean that 14% of its
college student population is foreign. For the United Kingdom, about
12% is foreign. For the U.S., it is closer to 4%. The U.S. may have the
largest number of students, but compared to other English-speaking
countries, we have the smallest percentage of international students.
At Indiana University Bloomington, our experiences are similar to
these national trends. We have seen a significant decline in the number
of applications from international students at both the undergraduate
and graduate levels for our fall 2004 semester. International
applications for admission dropped by 14% at the undergraduate level
and by 21% at the graduate level.
The diversity of our entering international freshman class also
declined this year. In 2003, we enrolled new undergraduate students
from 40 different countries; this fall, that number was reduced to 33.
During the past five years, enrollment from Muslim and Middle Eastern
countries has declined 22%. For fall 2004 those enrollments declined by
13.2% over the previous year.
TABLE 1.--ENROLLMENT FROM MUSLIM AND MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IU Bloomington 1990-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia................................................. 178 187 192 195 191 126
Kuwait.................................................... 3 5 5 9 9 15
Pakistan.................................................. 42 47 48 40 43 31
Saudi Arabia.............................................. 27 28 26 21 17 11
United Arab Emirates...................................... 65 59 17 20 14 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollments from the five leading countries of origin at the
university--South Korea, China, India, Taiwan, and Japan--have declined
by 11.6% for fall 2004 over the previous year. The numbers of students
from China fell from 405 in fall 2003 to 357 in fall 2004. Student
enrollments from India dropped from 459 to 353 in that same period. The
overall picture indicates that the diversity of the student body has
changed, and we are no longer hearing all of the relevant voices from
outside the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the numbers are clear. It is now apparent that
thousands of students who would have otherwise come to the U.S. are no
longer doing so. The potential future impact on Indiana University is
significant, affecting intellectual strengths, the university's
research capacity and the size and quality of our student body. The
economic prosperity of the state of Indiana is also affected.
International students contribute $326 million to our state economy
each year.
The Potential Harm to Research and Teaching
These trends will have negative consequences for the university as
a whole. A number of our international area centers, departments,
research programs and professional schools depend on the continued
presence of international students and scholars. For example, on the
Indianapolis campus, over 30% of instructors, research specialists and
technical staff in IU's School of Medicine, the second largest in the
U.S., are from abroad. The school's research programs will be seriously
curtailed if they are unable to continue attracting international
scientists. These are serious problems facing not only Indiana
University but U.S. higher education as a whole.
This is exemplified by a statement from the vice chairman for
research in the Department of Radiology, who says that, ``The
availability of foreign visitors is absolutely critical to our
programs. [They] not only benefit the department but also provide
benefit to groups throughout the state of Indiana that utilize the
Indiana Center of Excellence in Biomedical Imaging.'' The current
bottleneck in visa processing will have adverse effects on the school's
ability to deliver critically needed medical expertise.
On the Indianapolis campus, a critically important research project
within the Department of Pharmacology was delayed for eight months and
its funding put in jeopardy because a research assistant from China was
stranded there awaiting visa renewal after a brief trip home.
On the Bloomington campus, the case of a visiting Iranian professor
of mathematics is also instructive. In May of 2004, the professor left
Indiana University to give a series of lectures in London. He has been
stranded there without support while his application for a visa to
return to the U.S. has been under review since then. His courses have
had to be covered by other faculty, putting unforeseen burdens on his
department.
The Need for Sensible Visa Policies
We believe a critical need exists to re-examine current visa
policies. A number of higher education organizations have made
constructive recommendations for improving the visa process. We concur
with these recommendations.
At Indiana University, we are especially concerned that our
students still face bottlenecks at consular offices around the
world.
It is also evident that the 90-second visa interview
contributes to these delays. We wonder whether these are really
necessary for the vast majority of legitimate applicants.
Students who have successfully received entry visas should
not require the same degree of scrutiny whenever they need to
leave and re-enter the country.
Providing additional resources for consular officials would
certainly help and we would support such a move.
These suggestions are further described in statements and
recommendations offered by NAFSA: Association of International
Educators in, ``Promoting Secure Borders and Open Doors: A National
Interest-Based Visa Policy for Students and Scholars,'' and a similar
document offered by the Association of American Universities, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and others,
entitled, ``Statement and Recommendations on Visa Problems Harming
America's Scientific, Economic, and Security Interests.''* Each of
these documents has been included for the record to accompany my
written testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The document ``Statement and Recommendations on Visa Problems
Harming America's Scientific, Economic, and Security Interests,'' also
presented during testimony given earlier, can be found on page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana University's Efforts to Attract and Retain International
Students and Scholars
Indiana University is responding to the decline in the number of
international students and scholars by:
Enhancing the information and resources available to
students via the worldwide Web;
Engaging our alumni and friends overseas to assist us more
directly with recruitment;
Giving more extensive guidance to prospective students and
scholars on the visa process;
Allocating significant resources to help them navigate that
process; and
Providing financial incentives to attract students by
maximizing the use of limited scholarship funds.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the outstanding programs we have worked to build at
Indiana University--many of which further national strategic
interests--are at risk. What is happening at Indiana University is
happening at colleges and universities throughout the United States.
Too many intellectual ties that cross borders and unite peoples are
being severed. Stemming the flow of international students and scholars
who want to participate in our academic life also stems the free flow
of knowledge and ideas. This is a moment for decisive action. We must
return the United States to its pre-eminence in international
education.
______
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.
1. Provide effective policy guidance
Congress and the Department of Homeland Security must act to
make ``Secure Borders--Open Doors'' the effective policy guidance
for the Department of State.
2. Focus efforts on those who require special screening
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.
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.
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.
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.
Expedite processing and save consular resources by
incorporating pre-screening or precertification 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.
3. Create a timely, transparent and predictable visa process
The White House should institute standard guidelines for
inter-agency reviews of visa applications:
--Establish a 15-day standard for responses to the State Department
from other agencies in the inter-agency clearance process.
--Implement a 30-day standard for the completion of the entire inter-
agency 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 email inbox.
--Establish a special review process to resolve any cases not decided
within 60 days.
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
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.
Adequate resources must be provided to ensure the
interoperability of data systems necessary for the efficient
functioning of the inter-agency review process.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, President Herbert.
We would like for you to proceed now, President Mote.
STATEMENT OF D.C. (DAN) MOTE, JR., PH.D. PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD
Dr. Mote. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try not
to repeat the comments, very distinguished comments by my
colleagues, who essentially presented materials very similar to
ours and experience similar to ours.
I would just like to comment on a couple of consequences of
this overzealous application of visa restrictions through the
Visa Mantis system and in fact a little bit on its long-term
negative impacts. For half a century, as we all know, the
United States has benefited tremendously by attracting the
world's brightest minds to our science and technology programs.
If we look at our college of engineering, which is a top 20
college of engineering in the United States, we have 193
faculty members in this college and 101 of them were foreign-
born, and most of them, of course, were educated in the United
States in graduate programs. I think that is fairly typical of
engineering programs around the United States. Ph.D. students
in sciences and engineering across the country are more than 50
percent, in engineering at least, 50 percent foreign-born.
The dean of the college of engineering at Maryland, in
fact, is foreign-born and U.S.-educated. The dean of the life
sciences college at Maryland is foreign-born and U.S.-educated.
The dean of the computer and mathematical and physical sciences
college at Maryland is foreign-born and U.S.-educated. In fact,
the world leadership of the United States in science and
technology is directly related to our ability to recruit
scientists and engineers of distinguished caliber from around
the world, I think there is no doubt about that, and we should
not overpump up ourselves in terms of our capacity without
them.
Now, a few negative impacts in the short term. In the last
2 years we have had a 36-percent drop in international student
applications at the University of Maryland and a 21-percent
drop in enrollments of international students. There are three
competing factors which are causing this. The first one is the
competition from abroad for recruiting students. Students, we
never recruited them before. We always got them for nothing
and, even with a little abuse, they came anyway, because we
were the only game in town, as a matter of fact. They really
had nowhere else to go.
We have not figured out yet that there are a lot of other
people in the world now. They have distinguished programs and
they are recruiting them very aggressively and successfully. So
the competition is a factor.
Secondly, efforts of home countries to keep their students
at home are very significant--at home in their graduate schools
and also at home in their developing technology companies,
where they need smart people to work there. They are making
incentives to keep them at home. Take Taiwan for example.
Taiwan requires a student who is going abroad for higher
education or graduate education to complete military service
before they go. If they stay at home for graduate education
they do not have to do so. One example.
Thirdly, of course, is the greatly increased problem with
obtaining visas. The first two problems--that is, the
competition and efforts-at-home problems--are things we all
have to tackle and those problems are going to get worse. They
are not going to get better, no matter what we do, because the
countries around the world are not going to wait for us to
figure it out.
But the visa problem we can handle and we need to handle.
There is a kind of perfect storm which bring these problems
together at the same time and is causing this problem we have.
We do not think it is going to get any better by itself. The
analysts of the educational--ETS, Educational Testing Services,
data for 2004 predict a reduction in the number of students who
are going to take the GRE, the international students. Fifty
percent reduction in Chinese students, they predict; 43 percent
reduction in Taiwanese students who are going to take the GRE;
37 percent reduction in Indian students that are going to take
the GRE.
Senator Sarbanes, thank you very much for coming.
So therefore the pool of people who are even expressing
interest in coming to the United States is also decreasing
around the world.
Now, let me switch very briefly in the short time to the
projected difficulties we have with the Visa Mantis system. In
the winter of 2002 we had five potential graduate students from
Tsinghua University in Beijing. This is China's strongest and
best science and technology university and these are obviously
very distinguished people, who wanted to come into Ph.D.
programs in computer science and engineering. In mid-April of
2003 they went to the consulate and went through the beginning
of the visa process and were told that it would take 90 days
because of the fact they are in technically sensitive areas and
they should expect--but they should expect the possibility of
completing their visa process by the fall of 2003.
Well, by August of 2004 our applicants had not yet heard of
their status in visas and they essentially have made other
plans and they have gone elsewhere. They were not denied visas,
they were not issued visas. They just disappeared.
The pipeline from those students has closed and the
pipeline will reopen for those students someplace else, in
Australia or Europe or somewhere else. This is just one
example. Every university in the United States has examples of
pipelines closing from universities abroad to universities at
home, and once those pipelines close they reform someplace
else. This is a major crisis for our country that we cannot
just think will take care of itself.
There is also an impact on training programs, another kind
of educational program. We have very extensive programs with
training bureaucrats in government and people in corporations
on capitalism, on business, on commerce, on democracy and
policies. We have an extensive program with China. We have
educated over 900 Chinese, people who have gone on to be mayors
in cities, in positions of responsibility. In fact, that is the
best way to get distinguished alumni, by the way, a 6-month
training program with these people, and they pay for it
besides.
The director of Jiangsu Provincial Senior Management
Training Center sent me a letter last week and desperately
pleaded with me to intercede so that they can get visas for
their group to come to study at Maryland on government. This
would be the seventh group from Jiangsu Province we have had,
in a relationship that has gone back to 1995. They have sent
over 200 people here in this program and, for some reason or
other, this particular group cannot get visas.
A university example. We had an Iranian electrical
engineering student who came in the fall of 2000, starting a
Ph.D. program. In 2002 he was married to an Iranian woman by
proxy in Iran. Of course, she could not get a visa because
proxy marriages are not recognized as legitimate for visa
purposes.
He returned then in August of 2003 to help get his wife a
visa. After some back and forth, as you might expect, she
ultimately did get a visa. But of course, by that time his visa
had expired, so he could not come back into the country even
though she could come into the country. After over a year of
work between our university and the Office of Public and
Diplomatic Liaison in the State Department, he did get a visa
in Dubai. So he went to Dubai. By that time her visa had
expired. So then he returned. She is still there, trying to get
a visa.
I do not know if there is any merit in this story. I cannot
figure out what it might be if there is any. But I certainly do
not feel safer and I do not feel our Nation is being better
protected in the future by this kind of treatment.
I have three recommendations that I would like to throw out
on the table. First, I think we have to change the Visa Mantis
policy where the categories requiring visa clearance are much
more sharply defined so we do not get into these indecisive
circumstances.
Secondly, the time required for visa clearance just must be
reasonable and predictable. A claim that 95 percent, or I have
seen even 98 percent, of Visa Mantis clearances are completed
within 1 month runs substantially counter to our experience.
That is all I can say on that.
Thirdly, the term of visa approval for 1 year or even
shorter is much too short. Students who are submitted to this
Visa Mantis clearance process have to repeat this visitation,
if they leave the country, and it is a bureaucratic delay which
seems to be of no great value and it certainly discourages
building our relationships as we have talked about earlier for
recruiting students here that we desperately need.
The long-term consequences. Basically, we are already
witnessing a fraying of our technical system that has led the
United States to be the undisputed leader in science and
technology in the world. This fraying is coming about because
we are not investing in long-term research in this country, we
are not providing incentives for Americans to go into science
and technology, and now we are not encouraging foreign
scientists to come here.
We need to remind ourselves that three billion people have
joined the market economy in the last 15 years. More than half
the population of the world has joined this market economy
since the Berlin Wall came down--Russia, Central Asia, India,
and China. To remain competitive with this market population,
we must be able to recruit the most capable students and
scholars from other countries as well as our own. This will be
our competitive advantage. Our security depends on it, as a
matter of fact, as well as our wellbeing, our standard of
living, and our way of life.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Mote follows:]
Prepared Statement of C.D. Mote, Jr., President, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD
Chairman Lugar and Members of the Committee: My name is Dan Mote,
and I am president of the University of Maryland, College Park. I
appreciate very much the opportunity to address the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee today on a matter of grave concern, the impact of
visa regulations on the educational and research enterprise of the
nation. I am speaking to you today as president of a preeminent
research university in the shadow of the nation's capital that has for
years attracted a flow of outstanding students, researchers, and
faculty from other nations who have made enormous contributions to the
prosperity and technological leadership of the United States.
We all agree that protecting our citizens is a priority second to
none. Universities have a clear investment in the security of our
nation and are committed without reservation to serving this interest.
The University of Maryland is eager to assist in any way possible in
promoting the security of our region and our country. To that end, we
fully support recommendations that require careful scrutiny of those
entering the United States for whatever purpose. We also have a clear
and historical responsibility to deliver the highest quality education
and research programs to keep the nation strong and competitive. We do
not believe these are mutually exclusive mandates.
The United States prides itself on attracting to our research
universities the world's brightest students. Their presence in programs
in engineering, biosciences, and computer and natural sciences, among
other fields, has resulted in the United States achieving its current
status as world leader in these areas. The consequences of undue
restrictions that hinder our ability to recruit outstanding talent from
other nations will degrade the technical strength of the U.S.
substantially. America stands to lose the edge in brain power we have
attained since World War II.
Immediate negative impact. At the University of Maryland, over the
last two years, we have experienced a 36% drop in applications and a
21% drop in enrollment of new international graduate students in our
programs. The decrease in applications is due to three converging
factors: greatly increased problems with getting visa approval from the
United States; competition from countries all over the world who have
jumped in to try to attract the most talented students to their
universities; and efforts of home countries to step into this breach
and keep graduates at home with better opportunities and policies
intended to stop the brain drain (military service is required in
Taiwan before Taiwanese get permission to study abroad). The $100
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) fee we now must
charge has doubled the cost for international students applying to
Maryland. This additional financial burden likely prevents some of the
brightest students in poorer countries from applying.
The decrease in international applications is being experienced at
all major universities. It is likely to continue. Analysts of the
Educational Testing Service (ETS) data declare the ``bubble has burst
on foreign student enrollments.'' The number of international students
registering in 2004 for the Graduate Record Exam GRE (required for
admittance to most graduate programs in the United States) is predicted
to drop by 50% for Chinese students, 43% for Taiwanese, and 37% for
Indians. Reforms in the administration of the test in China and
elsewhere accounts perhaps for some of that decrease, but the drop in
registration occurs in all countries, a clear indication that students
are turning away from American schools.
PROTRACTED PROCESSING DIFFICULTIES AND THE VISAS MANTIS SYSTEM
An example: In the late winter of 2002, five very bright
undergraduates from Tsinghua University, generally considered to be the
best science and technology university in China, applied to Ph.D.
programs in Computer Science and Engineering at Maryland. Based upon
their excellent academic credentials, the University admitted the five
to graduate programs commencing in August 2003. They went to the
American consulate in Beijing in mid-April, 2003 for a visa and were
told that they would have to undergo a security check, which would take
90 days to complete. Our potential students still had not heard the
results of their request by the time classes began in August 2004, and
they have made other plans and are lost to the United States.
Once the pipeline closes, it dries up completely. Those five
students from China will tell others coming along not to bother
applying here, the United States does not want foreign students. The
students we intentionally keep out or scare away today could well be
the world's leading scientists, engineers, and doctors of tomorrow who
might have chosen in past years to make the United States their home,
to our lasting benefit. Finally, we would lose an entire cohort of
students whose education in America could produce future friends and
allies in the spread of democracy.
Impact on Training Programs that Promote American know-how and
values. The University of Maryland, like many others, has a series of
technical training programs on topics designed to provide information
to a rising managerial cadre in countries like China on how capitalism,
business, commerce, democracies, political justice systems, and other
infrastructure systems work in free countries. Our Institute for Global
Chinese Affairs has held numerous training sessions for hundreds of
rising managers across China. This week, I received a memo from the
Director of the Jiangsu Provincial Senior Management Training Centre
concerning the latest group (six have come since 1995) scheduled to
come for the senior management economic training course. He pleaded
with me to intercede to hasten unexpected and delaying visa processing
suddenly requested by the consulate general in Shanghai. What is the
cost to the United States to put barriers up on programs that give us
the opportunity to win friends and export democratic values?
RECOMMENDATION FOR RATING OF CONSULATES
In the face of difficulties such as those described above, I became
so concerned about this problem that last summer I recommended that AAU
universities develop a system rating the quality of service by
consulates throughout the world that handle visa applications. This
system would identify consulates that consistently use unreasonable
delaying tactics and arbitrary determinations in their processing of
visa applications by students and scholars and separate them from
others. The system would bring to attention to consulates not willing
or able to do the work in timely fashion required in response to those
wishing to enter the country for education or research. We would
distribute this annual ranking widely. The United States can not afford
to project an image that alienates international students who will be
leaders in fields we need.
Problems with the Visas Mantis system. A particularly troublesome
part of the current visa restrictions is the Visas Mantis system, a
special security clearance that must be issued when there is some
concern about the sensitivity of the field the student wishes to enter
or the technology to which the student or researcher would have access.
These security checks are intended to prevent ``prohibited export from
the U.S. of goods, technology, or sensitive information.'' The consular
post that requests a Mantis name check, or Security Advisor Opinion,
must wait until Washington responds before granting a visa. In some
cases this has taken months. A Visas Mantis check may also be required
of students who have been admitted to the United States but return home
even for a brief vacation. This system now appears to some to be used
arbitrarily to draw out the process that has resulted in its current
reputation as a bureaucratic tool for harassing international students
and scholars instead of a useful security measure.
University cases
Student: Iranian Electrical Engineering doctoral student began
program in fall, 2000 on own funding. A good student, he was offered an
assistantship a year later. In fall 2002, married by proxy an Iranian.
She could not get a visa because U.S. Consul does not consider marriage
by proxy valid. In August 2003 he returned to Iran to get wife. After
numerous visits by him and his wife to the consulate, her visa was
approved, but his own visa expired and he was held under a Security
Advisory Opinion. Our Office of International Education Services
intervened with the Office of Public and Diplomat Liaison in the State
Department, and he received the visa one year later in Dubai. It took
so long to issue it that his wife's visa was no longer valid. He has
returned to his academic program. Now his wife is trying to get a visa
again. Is there any merit seen in this costly story?
Scholars
Russian scholar invited to University to collaborate on research in
reactions of membranes in the presence of metal ions. Applied for
Exchange Visitor visa 2/10/2003. Finally received visa 8/23/2004, 18
months later.
Chinese scholar invited to University to collaborate on the theory
of phase transitions in complex fluids at the University's Institute
for Physical Science and Technology. Applied for an Exchange Visitor
visa 1/12/2004. Finally received visa 9/14/2004, 7 months later.
Russian scholar invited to come to University as a short-term
scholar to do cooperative research in plasma physics for 1 month.
Applied for Exchange Visitor Visa 12/08/2003 and is still pending.
Still attempting to get him here.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes in Visas Mantis policy
What are the current problems with Visas Mantis that could be
changed? First, the category of visas requiring visas mantis clearance
must be better defined. Currently too many visa applications are
subject to Visas Mantis while the need is to focus on those who require
special screening. Overuse is due to the large and unfocused number of
academic areas listed on the technical alert list. The technical alert
list needs to contain only clearly defined academic areas of real
concern. Many administrators and bureaucrats no longer know what
subjects should be deemed off-limits. Consular officers are
intersecting the technical alert list with ``Sensitive Areas''
(academic subject matter areas referred to in the U.S. Patriot Act in
which students and scholars could learn how to make something harmful
to us), an oversimplification causing many more people to be subject to
Visa Mantis.
A second concern is the timeline for visa clearance, which should
be timely and. predictable. Though a recent report claims that 95% of
the Visa Mantis clearances are completed within a month, we find from
our experience at Maryland that the clearances are often taking much
longer.
A third problem is that the validity of a clearance when made is
only for one year. Why not make it for the duration of the program? Now
students and scholars are submitted to a Visa Mantis clearance more
than once if they go out of the country. This repetitive processing
seems excessive and unnecessary and very costly.
LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES
As the examples illustrate, we are already witnessing the fraying
of the system that has led the United States to its place as undisputed
leader in world science, technology, and medicine. We are not investing
in long-term basic research sufficiently to retain preeminence in the
future. Apart from biosciences our effort has been declining across the
board. As a nation, we are not providing incentives for Americans to
pursue careers in basic science, and foreign scientists are discouraged
from coming here. This trend must be reversed.
We need to remind ourselves that 3 billion people have joined the
free market worldwide knowledge based economy in the past 15 years. The
competition for human capital is absolutely fierce and we cannot afford
to shoot ourselves not in the foot but in the head with restrictions
that kill our economic future.
If the trend in applications is not reversed, the implication for
the future of our universities is dire. Consider the extent to which
our research universities depend on the result of our past open-armed
welcome of the best talent from other countries. In our A. J. Clark
School of Engineering, which is ranked in the top twenty engineering
schools nationally, we have l93 tenured tenure/track faculty; 101 of
them are foreign born. The vast majority did their graduate work in the
United States. The deans of the Colleges of Life Sciences, Computer,
Mathematical, & Physical Sciences and the Clark School of Engineering
are all foreign born and U.S. educated.
These data are not an aberration. One only needs to extrapolate to
the engineering schools throughout the country to get some sense of the
enormous negative impact unreasonable visa restrictions can have on the
nation's entire research and technology enterprise.
Some have cast this problem as a cyclical job market issue and
claim there will be no shortage of scientists or engineers even if we
keep out large numbers of international students. Though I personally
doubt that there will be enough United States graduates to fill the
vacancies, the main point here is the opportunity we lose to attract
the right people, the most talented people to work in our industrial,
commercial, educational, and research enterprises. As we have witnessed
beginning in WWII some of the greatest thinkers who have contributed
the most to our dominance in science and hence to our security, quality
of life, and prosperity, have come to us from other countries. If we
appear to be uninterested, many other countries including Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, European countries, and Asian countries are
putting out the welcome mat. These and other nations are competing
effectively for those scientists and will gain technological
advantages, weakening our economic and technological supremacy and our
security.
Finally, we need to understand that globalization is the driving
force in the world today. We live in a tightly connected world where
every major issue is a global one. Whether it is the economy, the
environment, security, pollution, energy, health, food safety, nuclear
issues, or education, all are global issues. And like businesses, top
universities are global in scope, responsibility and competitiveness
too. As an example of changing global competitiveness consider the
emergence of top-class universities around the world. China has set a
goal to build a number of world-class universities over the next
decade. And so has Taiwan and so has Japan and so have a lot of
countries. Though most of the World's top universities are currently in
the U.S., many are determined to change this balance, and they probably
will. We cannot play into our decline by turning away the best and the
brightest from our schools.
To remain competitive in the coming decades, we must continue to
embrace the most capable students and scholars of other countries. Our
security and quality of life depend on it.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. Let
me say that, fortuitously, Senator Sarbanes has joined us and
coincidentally with this hearing Senator Sarbanes and I
celebrated over last weekend the fiftieth anniversary reunion
of our class going to Oxford on Rhodes scholarships. We went on
the boat together and we did not have visa problems nearly as
extensive as----
Senator Sarbanes. We have been on the boat together.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Ever since, sort of inseparable. I am
grateful for that, Paul. I am delighted that you are here.
We will try to limit our first round of questions to 8
minutes each for the three of us so that we will have ample
time to ask questions and to let the panel respond to them. We
will then have an hour for the second panel to repeat that
process. Then 11:30 will come and we will need to depart.
Let me just begin the questioning. President Mote, in terms
of amendment of statute or procedures, you have suggested first
of all changes in the Visa Mantis program, which affects
principally Russian and Chinese applicants because of security
considerations of technology transfer. That at least was the
intent of those who have testified about that.
Essentially, the problem seems to be that the intelligence
agencies who must verify that there are not going to be
problems take a long time to come forward with that--so long,
as a matter of fact, that this is a discouraging factor. The
number of applicants from China and Russia has been declining,
apparently. This was perhaps not a large percentage to begin
with, but still very important in terms of our public diplomacy
and the sharing of values with these students.
A second thought you had is that the visas are too short,
and that if we are going to go through this process for each of
the students, why, it would be very helpful to extend them.
Maybe one of you can explain whether your educational
associations or colleges or presidents have made some formal
representations to the State Department or to Immigration or to
anyone? In other words, without reinventing the wheel, are
there some traces that this committee can follow as we try
either legislation or pursuit with the regulators on follow-up
recommendations that you are making?
President Jischke.
Dr. Jischke. Mr. Chairman, the recommendations I asked to
have read into the record would include recommendations of the
sort that President Mote has suggested. I, too, would endorse
making the visas that students and scholars receive of program-
length duration rather than, say a year, I think would be a
very sensible thing to do. Particularly with countries like
China and Russia, where there is a particular concern
developing reciprocal understandings with those countries that
would facilitate coming to a decision about a visa, I think,
would be a very wise thing to do as well.
Dr. Mote. The American Association of Universities, which
is the organization with 60 United States universities, the
large research universities, and two Canadian universities, has
made recommendations on this, as have other professional
organizations.
Dr. Herbert. Mr. Chairman, I also did include in my
statement a set of recommendations that have come from a number
of the major associations, and that is dated May 12, 2004. I
think that that should be very helpful to you.
The Chairman. Well, that will be great. This is why your
full statements are a part of the record, so that a transcript
can be circulated with our colleagues and their staffs, and
also with the regulatory agencies that are involved.
Have any of the groups with which you are associated gone
so far as to suggest draft language, or does this still lie in
the lists of recommendations?
Dr. Mote. My agent behind me says yes, the AAU, at least,
has suggested draft language.
The Chairman. Very well. That probably is not a part of
your statement, but I would ask that you submit that for the
record.
Dr. Mote. We will.
The Chairman. It will be included, so that we have the
benefit of that research and effort that has been made.
[The information referred to has been made a permanent part
of the record.]
Dr. Mote. Can I comment, Mr. Chairman? On the initial
statement on the Visa Mantis policy, I think the whole process
is so complex because the number of categories are too many and
too vague, and between going to the security people and the
consular people it is very difficult to get from the
intersection of these two sets of data a very accurate outcome.
So I think this really has to be thought through very carefully
and allow us to shrink this down to people who are real threats
and be more responsive in our follow-up on requests for visas.
The Chairman. Let me just ask, what sort of reaction to all
of this have you experienced on your campuses? Obviously,
students are stressed by the process to begin with, and by
trying to return to their homelands, as you mentioned. Has
there been any other student reaction about which you can
testify?
Yes, Dr. Jischke.
Dr. Jischke. I have actually been amazed at the level of
understanding that the international students exhibit about the
legitimate security concerns the country has. They fully
appreciate, at least the ones I have visited with, that the
country does have a legitimate concern, given particularly what
happened on September 11, 2001.
The depth of concern is particularly within the faculty.
They are deeply concerned both by the restrictions on the
availability of talented students and, second, I think they
believe this ultimately is very destructive to the quality of
our academic programs, not only in terms of the contributions
these very talented students make, but the long-term
consequences of these kinds of policies are going to limit the
opportunities our own students have to travel abroad.
Eventually these things generate reactions.
I think there is within the faculty at Purdue and I suspect
at all of our universities a deep commitment to an
international education, to international opportunities, as
part of a rich education. I think they are very concerned about
this trend. It is deeply rooted in the scholars of the world
that they work together, they visit together, they exchange. It
is in the nature of scholarship, in the nature of research. I
think they are deeply worried about the implications of all of
this.
The Chairman. President Mote, you mentioned specifically
that over half of your engineering faculty are citizens who
began their lives abroad. This is a fact that, as you pointed
out, is fairly common in engineering schools throughout our
country, but it's probably not a point well recognized by
Americans. A very high percentage of the engineering students
who populate these departments come from other countries. The
enrichment of that entire technical base, whether teachers or
students or combinations thereof, really depends upon this
international flow.
Would you want to amplify on that?
Dr. Mote. Absolutely true, that is absolutely true. It is a
very good point. I thank you for this opportunity. Early on,
that is over the last 50 years, we were able, because of our
position in the world circumstance, to gather these best minds
to come to our country. They studied here and they stayed here
and they have contributed tremendously to our quality of life
going forward. No doubt about that. And the strength of our
technological enterprise outside of universities as well.
But another aspect that is very important and we need to
understand is since the year 1990 or so, when we have now
become the world of globalization, we have a much greater reach
in the world and the university has a different role. That is,
all of our students need international experience. We need to
draw the best minds from around the world. We are now competing
with essentially three billion more people, as it were, that
have joined this knowledge economy, this market economy, in the
last 15 years.
We need to be able to recruit people from these countries
to help our enterprise, to give us that advantage of talent
that we got before for nothing. Now we have to get it by active
recruitment, planning, and strategy. That is, the universities
have to do it. Help from the government would certainly be
nice, and our corporations have to do it. Everybody is in this
game.
It is a different, entirely different world we live in in
the last 15 years than it was for the 35 years before that.
Then we got them for nothing. Actually, we were not very nice
to them when they came here, but they had no other choice. Now
there are a lot of choices and for us to continue we have to
change our viewpoint and our receptiveness to gather them here.
The Chairman. That is a very important theme. We really
have to be competitive at this point. We are not doing the
world a favor. We are in fact competing for these talents and
for our ability to progress as a society.
Dr. Mote. Absolutely true, and to put up roadblocks and to
make life unpleasant, unnecessarily so, is just not only
shooting ourselves in the foot, it is shooting ourselves in the
head.
The Chairman. My time has expired. I am now going to
recognize Senator Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a statement I would like to include in the record.
The Chairman. It will be included in full.
Senator Sarbanes. I would like to make just a few comments
at the outset. First of all, I want to commend you, Senator
Lugar, for holding this hearing. We are near the end of the
session. There are many others issues on our agenda. But I
think this is a very important matter. The U.S. projects its
strength around the world in many dimensions--obviously the
military, but also the economic, the diplomatic, the political.
Our extraordinary system of higher education, which I think is
unparalleled in the world, is an integral part of that
strength. It offers incomparable opportunities to students and
scholars at every level.
Since the end of World War II especially, we have drawn
talented, hard-working, often visionary men and women from
virtually every corner of the world to these institutions of
higher education. In some cases they stay here and become part
of our scholarly community, a community that plays a vital role
in training and educating the next generation, laying the
foundations for economic prosperity. More often they return to
their country of origin, taking with them the training they
have acquired here and the experience, I think, of being part
of an intellectual community defined by the highest standards.
They have lived and worked in a climate of free and open
inquiry and debate. I think that serves our national interests,
very frankly. We, of course, realize that over the past 3 years
our visa policies have been markedly revised to reflect our
urgent security concerns. Application procedures take longer,
they are more complex, and more expensive. In some instances,
regrettably, they seem to be arbitrary. Institutions from
across the country, as has happened here this morning, are
reporting declines in applications, admissions, enrollments,
and the difficulty that the students who do come have
confronted in getting here and then in staying here.
The Chronicle of Higher Education did a recent survey
showing that foreign student enrollment in the United States is
in effect leveling off, while in Australia, the United Kingdom,
Canada, it is jumping in very significant numbers. So it seems
apparent that there has been a shift in where these able
students are going.
This raises the question whether we can maintain our
preeminence among the world's institutions of higher education.
Secretary Powell actually last spring said, acknowledged that
we need to do a more skillful job of attracting foreign
students to our colleges and universities. The Secretary's
comment came as 25 science higher education and engineering
groups representing some 95 percent of the research community
joined in proposing revisions to end what they called the
``visa processing quagmire.'' I quote from that report.
Actually, NAFSA, the Association of International Educators,
which is on our second panel, was one of the signatories to
that report. They said: ``We are resolute in our support of a
secure visa system and believe that a more efficient system is
a more secure one. We are also confident that it is possible to
have a visa system that is timely and transparent, that
provides for thorough review of visa applicants, and that still
welcomes the brightest minds in the world.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you. I think we are
fortunate in having these three distinguished university
presidents before us this morning. Both Purdue and Indiana, of
course, have drawn students from abroad in very significant
numbers. They are located out in the heartland of our country,
but they have a very strong international dimension. The
University of Maryland at College Park is the flagship
institution of my State's university system and that campus
plays an absolutely indispensable role in the intellectual
research and economic infrastructure of our State and indeed
our Nation.
The first question I want to put is, it is whether
legislation may be necessary to compel the Executive Branch to
use greater common sense. Is there legislation that is an
impediment? It seems to me that those who have established the
regulatory regime are not required to establish the one they
have set up by law. So they could go back and redo it,
restructure it, in order to address many of the problems.
Is it your perception that there are legal requirements
that have been enacted into law that create this problem? Or is
it how the regulators are setting up their system? Do you have
any view on that question?
Dr. Jischke. I believe many of the suggestions that the
higher education community is making could be implemented
without new legislation. It is less clear to me that our
suggestion for additional resources in order to have additional
people available to expedite the processing might actually
require, at least, appropriations activity by the Congress.
Senator Sarbanes. Anyone else want to add to that?
Dr. Herbert. I agree with that. It seems to me that really
the key question is the actual availability of resources
necessary to hire the added consular staff that are really
critical to addressing some of these problems. But otherwise,
it is the regulators who could do something about these issues.
Senator Sarbanes. Which government office do you interact
with most of the time on this issue?
Dr. Herbert. State Department.
Dr. Mote. State Department.
Dr. Jischke. Yes.
Senator Sarbanes. How about the Department of Homeland
Security?
Dr. Mote. Not directly from us, I do not think. Just one
second.
Dr. Herbert. The FBI is the silent partner. The dealings we
have are primarily with the State Department.
Dr. Mote. Yes, State Department principally.
Senator Sarbanes. I think we need to try to divide this
problem up into sub-problems, so to speak, because it seems to
me that there are different levels of concern. The Chinese-
Russian issue is complicated by the question of protecting
technology, which may not exist with respect to people who come
from other countries.
I understand one problem is that once they get the visa and
come, if they then want to go home during a recess or if there
is a family emergency or if they want to go to a scholarly
conference, say in Toronto, out of the country, to come back
they again have to go through the whole process that they had
to go through to get here to begin with.
It is one thing to say, okay, you want a visa, we run you
through pretty intense scrutiny that takes some period of time,
and there is going to be some cost involved, but eventually you
get that visa. You come. But then good reasons arise why you
need to leave the country temporarily, and then come back into
the country. My understanding is that often they are subjected
to the same process all over again, the same waiting periods.
Is that the case?
Dr. Jischke. Absolutely, right on target, sir.
Dr. Herbert. In fact, I have a problem right now. We have a
faculty member who is in our mathematics department, a visiting
professor from abroad. In May he left the university to give a
series of lectures in London. The problem is that he has been
stranded there without support because he cannot get his visa
renewed to come back into the country to teach the classes that
he was scheduled to teach this fall.
So it is without question a serious problem.
Senator Sarbanes. I know my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I
think this is one problem we ought to try to isolate and at
least take care of some aspects of it that seem to cry out for
immediate remedy. That is, it seems to me, a very clear
example. We have received reports of students who have come
here and then go home for a week or so to be with a parent who
has fallen ill, and then cannot return without going through
the whole complicated process all over again.
Dr. Herbert. A common problem. We have had several of those
cases.
Senator Sarbanes. I have difficulty seeing the common sense
of that process.
Dr. Jischke. Senator, one comment I would make, that in
some of these reviews, because they involve multiple agencies,
there was a coordination issue and there indeed maybe the White
House plays a leadership role in assuring that the agencies
work together in a timely way to resolve questions of visas. So
it could, in fact, involve not only the State Department,
Homeland Security, FBI, but the inter-agency coordination
function.
The Chairman. Well, the Senator makes a good point that I
think I would agree with. We must try to find out what can be
done by regulators in addition to legislators, and then try to
segment the problem, maybe by agencies or, where coordination
is required, we could have a list of who has to be coordinated.
But in any event, that is the purpose of our hearing, trying to
find what you have done already--and you have identified some
of that in your testimony--as well as our pragmatically trying
to think through with you how we might make some improvements,
which we are intending to do.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sarbanes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Sarbanes
I want to congratulate you and thank you for scheduling this
hearing at a time when the Senate is preoccupied with a sweeping
proposal for fundamental reorganization of our intelligence agencies
and a recess is imminent. Given the many demands on our time, it would
have been much simpler to postpone any review of current U.S. visa
policies with respect to foreign students, scholars and researchers on
the grounds that visa policy does not rank among the nation's or the
committee's highest priorities.
Such a decision would have been quite reasonable, given the
pressures of the moment, but in my view misguided. The U.S. projects
its strength around the world in many dimensions--the military, of
course, but also the economic, the diplomatic and the political. Our
extraordinary system of higher education, which has no parallel
anywhere in the world, is an integral part of that strength.
Our colleges, universities and research institutions offer
incomparable opportunities to students and scholars at every level.
Especially since the time of World War II, highly talented, hard-
working and often visionary men and women from virtually every corner
of the world have sought out these institutions. In some number of
cases they remain to become leading members in the U.S. scholarly
community, a community that plays a vital role both in educating and
training the next generation and in laying the foundations for our
economic prosperity. More often they return to their country of origin,
taking with them the training they have received, and also the
experience of being part of a community defined by the highest
standards of intellectual endeavor and integrity. They have lived and
worked in a climate of free and open inquiry and debate. I cannot think
of anything that better serves our national interest.
Over the past three years our visa policies have been radically
revised to reflect our urgent security concerns. Inevitably,
application procedures take longer; they are more complex and more
expensive. In many cases they are also arbitrary. As a consequence,
although one institution's experience may differ in details from
another's, institutions across the country consistently report declines
in applications, admissions and enrollments. As foreign student
enrollments have leveled off in this country, they have risen elsewhere
in the world. A recent survey in the Chronicle of Higher Education
shows some sobering trends. From 2000 to 2002, the latest year for
which U.S. figures are available, foreign student enrollment in
percentage terms increased 7.1 percent, while enrollment in the United
Kingdom increased 19.2 percent. In Australia the comparable figure is
35.1 percent, if enrollments for 2003 and 2004 are added, it is 82.9
percent. For Canada, the figure is an estimated 39.8 pecent.
The situation is cause for deep concern. It raises the question
whether we can maintain our preeminence among the world's institutions
of higher education. Under the current procedures, promising applicants
are too often rejected although they pose no security risk at all.
There is growing evidence that increasing numbers of students are not
applying at all, and choosing to go elsewhere instead. Even Secretary
of State Powell, in a speech on May 12, has acknowledged that we must
do a more skillful job of attracting foreign students to our colleges
and universities.
The Secretary's comment came as 25 science, higher-education and
engineering groups, representing some 95 percent of the nation's
research community, joined in proposing revisions to end what they
called ``the visa-processing quagmire.''
``We are resolute in our support of a secure visa system and
believe that a more efficient system is a more secure one,'' they said.
``We are also confident that it is possible to have a visa system that
is timely and transparent, that provides for thorough review of visa
applicants, and that still welcomes the brightest minds in the world.''
One of the signatories to that report--NAFSA: Association of
International Educators--is appearing before the committee today.
We are especially fortunate to have the opportunity to hear
directly from the presidents of three of the nation's major research
universities. Dan Mote is the president of the University of Maryland
College Park, the flagship institution in my state's University System.
College Park plays an absolutely indispensable role in the
intellectual, research and economic infrastructure of Maryland. I would
add that several long-time members of my staff are College Park
graduates, and I consider myself lucky to have them.
In concluding his written statement to the Committee, Dr. Mote sets
out in stark terms the challenge we face. He says: ``To remain
competitive in the coming decades, we must continue to embrace the most
capable students and scholars of other countries. Our security and
quality of life depend on it.''
This is an urgent issue, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
again for scheduling this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
The Chairman. Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the testimony. I am going to begin with a
suggestion, following up Senator Sarbanes and your own
comments, and then a comment, then a question. I suggest that
we Senators communicate with this White House or, if there is a
change in White House, with that White House between now and
budget time to be specific about the administration actions
that involve appropriations that might help.
Number two, my second suggestion is that you and Senator
Biden had, I thought, a very useful couple of sessions on post-
Iraq reconstruction, which were not hearings, but you invited a
number of people who knew what they were talking about to sit
around a table for 2 hours and discuss a memo that had been
prepared ahead of time.
Mr. Chairman, you might consider doing that again, inviting
people from the administration and from university campuses and
have somebody arrive with a list and say: Okay, here are the
first five things I would do if I were President to fix this
problem and could do it by administrative action, here are the
first five things I would do that require legislative
attention. My guess would be that that would produce some
attention within the administration.
Then the third thing I think we could do is join with the
lab directors and university administrators for an
administration meeting on the subject. I think we could do all
three of those before the end of the year, and if you thought
that was useful I would be glad to participate in it, because I
think this is a genuine problem.
It is also a problem where we have absolutely clear
competing principles, both of which we all agree with. On the
one hand, we just finished 2 years of a 9-11 Commission where
everybody was going to intensive detail to see, well, was there
any way to connect all these dots and know what was going to
happen before we got blown up by terrorists in this country. So
we all understand that.
I mean, two of the people who died in the World Trade
Center crash got their student visas after they were killed. So
there is a problem there, and if the whole country is
descending upon the President and the former President and the
administrations and saying you better not let anybody else in
the country who is going to blow us up, and we see on
television every day that we are fighting terrorism, then we
all understand why we need to be safe.
We also have just gone through creating this massive
Homeland Security Department. We are debating in the Senate
right now changes in the rules because Secretary Ridge and his
assistants testified before 150 hearings in the past 2 years.
So instead of working on your problem, they are up here talking
to us. We are part of the problem, seriously.
So those--and we all understand that. I do not even think
that is an argument here. I have talked with the President
about it, the Vice President about it, and Alan Greenspan has
mentioned it to me. The President was actually very fired up
about it. He said coordinating agencies is obviously one thing
to do.
So we have got a point on that side that everyone
understands, and I think you have been very specific in your
suggestions here, which I commend you for. Witnesses are not
always that specific. The one thing we might do is separate
them into what needs to be done by law, what needs to be done
by administrative action. You may already have done that. And
maybe put it into priority order, recognizing that what would
produce the minimum amount of security risk and the maximum
amount of help in solving the problem.
The other side of the problem deserves the attention this
hearing is giving it. Our gross national product has grown in
the last 25 years from a quarter to 33 percent of the whole
world's growth, which is an astonishing figure. Our secret
weapon is our remarkable system of research universities and
national laboratories, which we have not mentioned this
morning, because no one else in the world has anything like it.
We could testify all day about the fact that we not only
have many of the best universities in the world, we have almost
all of them, and the world knows that. I mean, you go to Europe
and you read in the newspaper that Tony Blair and Mr. Schroeder
in Germany, when their political careers are down, are taking
enormous political risk to try to change their higher education
systems because they are not very good compared with ours, and
they know that. And their talk, their political talk about
outsourcing in Europe in the headlines is not about jobs, it is
about brains, the outsourcing of European brains to the United
States universities and laboratories, all of which give us our
remarkable standard of living.
So I think we all--maybe we do not all understand that, but
it is an established fact not worth very many hours of
argument, and the facts that you have reminded us today about
the large number of foreign nationals who receive Ph.D.'s and
stay here is a huge fact.
When I was president of the University of Tennessee, it was
at the time of the Tiananmen Square event. I think there were
about 30,000 Chinese scholars in the United States. I wrote to
then-President Bush--I should have called him, actually--and
suggested that he grant immediate citizenship to all 30,000 of
those Chinese nationals, who at the time were afraid to go
home. Maybe that would have provoked a terrible crisis with
China, but it would have fixed us up in the United States for
the next generation in terms of brain power, the same way the
German scientists did during World War II.
So we need to be very much aware that we are chopping our
legs off when we make it harder for bright people to come in
here and help create jobs and a standard of living that we have
come to enjoy.
I also appreciate the fact, as noted in Dr. Mote's
comments, that it is not just visas. I mean, we are living in a
different world, and that is good. I mean, there are more
countries beginning to build first-rate universities. They are
seeing the value of growing. The more they grow--we want
African countries and Southeast Asian countries to be
prosperous and democratic, and they do that not just by sending
their agriculture minister to the University of Tennessee, but
they might train them there at home. So we want that, and we
are going to have that competition.
So I think that as a part of this process--it may not be
this committee that does it--we need to be thinking about what
should we be doing in the United States to grow our own
scientists and engineers and what specifically could we do.
So let me ask the three of you, what do you think about the
idea of such a roundtable? We do not have any administration
people here today, but I know that this President, this Vice
President, see this as a problem. Would such a roundtable help
say to the State Department and other people, could we say to
them, here are the first five things I would do if I were
President, here are the first five things I would do, I would
suggest to the Congress?
Dr. Mote. It sounds like an absolutely great idea to me. I
have to say, this roundtable would bring the different
interests around one table so they could hear each other. This
roundtable could actually list items for action, either by
policy change, implementation under current legislation,
actions for additional resources, and just list those out. I
cannot think of a more effective way to move this forward
quickly.
Otherwise, there are so many different partners involved
and so many different two-way conversations that take place,
you never actually get down to an agreement that will actually
move it forward.
Dr. Jischke. Absolutely. You are quite right, there is some
inherent conflicts in trying to tackle these issues between
security, long-term economic interests, and maybe our long-term
foreign policy interests, and that calls for a discussion and
it would be useful to have the people who can actually
implement ideas in the discussion. A great idea.
Dr. Herbert. I agree. Also, Senator, it seems to me in the
final analysis it is the dialogue that is most critically
needed at this point in time, and a discussion in a very candid
fashion of the problems that we have as well as the
opportunities that we must pursue. I think that your
articulation of this is extremely effective and describes what
might very well be the preamble for what we ought to be doing
in that kind of setting.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but if you decide that is a
useful way to move I would be glad to spend time working with
you on it.
The Chairman. It is an important pledge and I appreciate
that. I think it is a very good suggestion and no doubt we will
get under way. Our problem then will be, for all of us, to
think of who should be sitting around the table. But that will
be another day. I appreciate the suggestion.
Let me just mention, Senator Coleman has taken a specific
interest in the area that we are talking about today. He has
been a leader on our committee in this respect. I want to
welcome him to the hearing and call upon him for his questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
have a more complete statement I would like entered into the
record.
The Chairman. It will be made part of the record in full.
Senator Coleman. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you.
Again as my colleague from Maryland noted, this is late in the
session, and we have got just a few more days we are going to
be here; we are going to be out Friday and then come back
briefly in November. So it is pretty extraordinary to do this.
I have had conversations with the chairman and I really
appreciate your commitment and your leadership. It is very,
very important.
I also welcome--I see two of the presidents here represent
the heartland that I represent, Minnesota, part of the Big Ten.
I know that if President Bruenig was sitting here, President of
the University of Minnesota, his statement and his thoughts
would parallel your statements.
President Mote in his remarks raised the question, what is
the cost to the United States of putting up barriers to
programs that give us the opportunity to win friends and export
democratic values? I think that is the question, what is the
cost? From my perspective, I see this both as an economic
security issue, as my colleague from Tennessee has talked
about, the ability for America to be competitive--our
competitive answers are not low-cost, low-wage jobs. That is
not what America is about. It is innovation, it is
productivity, it is mind power.
The ability for us to be competitive in this changing 21st
century world is really tied to the academic excellence at
every level, but in particular what you gentlemen represent. So
I think this is an economic security issue.
I also think it is a national security issue, as some of
your own testimony has indicated, that the leaders of these
nations are folks who had the opportunity to be schooled in
American values and American institutions and American friends.
I think, as we understand in this body, I think the Senate is
the ultimate relationship business. We, right now, are losing
that opportunity in massive numbers.
I think this is a national security issue that will take
its toll 20 years from now. But the seeds that we fail to plant
today, the seeds that we are failing to plant today, are going
to have a direct impact on the ability that we have to work
with other nations and other leaders who should be our friends
and should be schooled here.
So I think there is much work to be done. I have put forth
a bill, Senate, S. 2715, the International Student and Scholar
Access Act. In many ways, I would respond to my colleague from
Maryland, a lot of it is simply asking for common sense. I
think, President Jischke, in your testimony you give a number
of specific recommendations. I would note that many of them are
contained in my bill.
But it may not take legislation, and so I want to raise my
hand and join with my colleague from Tennessee to say if there
is this roundtable, this further discussion, I will commit the
time and energy to be part of that. I think it is important.
Let me ask--two observations. One, the SEVIS program. We
understand that there are important national security concerns
today. We saw that. My colleague from Tennessee reflected upon,
two of the terrorists, two of the murderers in 9-11, were folks
who ultimately got student visas after their dastardly,
despicable acts. If something like that happens, you see big
change quickly, as it needs to be. But the question is what is
the balance.
It is interesting to note in the September 11th
Commission's report on page 377 they specifically note: ``The
United States should rebuild the scholarship, exchange and
library programs that reach out to young people and offer them
knowledge and hope. Such assistance as is provided should be
identified as coming from the citizens of the United States.''
We need to be involved in working with students in other
countries, and I think getting them here is a big part of that.
SEVIS is important because we need to have a system to deal
with this.
I would like to submit a letter for the record, Mr.
Chairman, from the University of Minnesota that discusses
problems with the SEVIS system, notably a system crash that
resulted in some 2,198 students and scholars at the university
in regulatory limbo, technically out of compliance with the
Patriot Act through no fault of their own or the university's.
The Chairman. It will be placed in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
University of Minnesota,
Office of Information Technology,
Minneapolis, MN, October 4, 2004.
To whom it may concern: As you know, the Patriot Act mandates
university compliance with the SEVIS system in the Department of
Homeland Security. The ramifications of inaccurate information
transmitted from the university to the federal government include
potential loss of visa status for international students and scholars,
significant administrative effort, and out of pocket expenses for
involved parties. The Patriot Act holds the university responsible for
the accuracy of the records in SEVIS for our international students and
scholars.
Due to high volume of transactions, the University of Minnesota
uses the SEVIS authorized mechanism of batch transmission of data to
communicate with SEVIS. This process has been improving, but it is
still fraught with failure. On a regular basis, we do not receive a
confirmation file, necessitating follow-up with the SEVIS help desk.
Usually, the issue is resolved within a day. Unfortunately, the most
recent failure of September 21, 2004 took 10 days to resolve, affecting
2,198 individuals. When we inquired as to the cause of the failure, we
were told it was a disk space issue. This leads us to lodge several
specific complaints.
1. Communication is an ongoing struggle. Status is not reported by
SEVIS to universities in a timely manner. We must call to check on
issues, and in this case we had been told for 10 days that the problem
would be resolved within 24 hours. Had we received accurate information
that it would take 10 days, we would have taken different action. Being
technologists, we recognize that problems occur and solutions are not
always easy; however, we need a reasonable reply in response to the
technical difficulties. Communication can help in every situation, and
it has been sorely lacking.
2. Status Reporting has been non-existent. When a batch job fails,
the institution should be notified. The current process is that the
university must recognize that a confirmation file did not arrive and
contact the SEVIS Help Desk. There is no web presence or proactive
notification of processing failure.
3. The Help Desk and the Federal Processing Center are separated by
a great distance. Frequently, the help desk passes on information
regarding a remedy, and it is incorrect. The university is not
permitted to contact the Federal Processing Center directly. In fact,
we have never had contact of any sort with the staff directly
responsible for loading the data that is the legal responsibility of
the university.
4. Planned maintenance and system downtime is often communicated
with very short notice or not at all. With the level of integration
that is required to run efficient programs, universities and software
vendors must receive greater advance notice with time reserved for
testing.
5. The staff that runs SEVIS is not attuned to business cycles.
There are legally binding deadlines for submission of information for
each visa holder. One such deadline is looming on October 7.
Universities across the country are submitting large volumes of data.
If the information the help desk passed on is correct, the current
problem we are dealing with is a direct result of lack of understanding
of business cycles.
Lest you think that we are willing to complain but not participate
in a solution, I offer the following suggestions:
1. The University of Minnesota would be willing to work with the
Department of Homeland Security and the staff that run the processing
center to organize a formal user group to focus on technical and user
concerns.
2. A web site communicating university-specific status information
as well as planned system changes and downtime would be extraordinarily
beneficial.
3. The listserv should be used more effectively. It takes a great
deal of time just to get an additional staff member approved and on the
list. This needs to be streamlined, better information needs to be
communicated, and information must be transmitted in a timelier manner.
I appreciate your efforts to assist the University of Minnesota in
working through the technology issues associated with SEVIS system data
transmission. We care deeply about the satisfaction of our very
talented students, staff, and faculty. The Office of Information
Technology is also committed to assisting our administration in
remaining compliant with regulation. I am confident that the University
and the Department of Homeland Security can work together to establish
a positive working relationship that ensures solid communication and
technical processes. If you wish to discuss this further, please
contact me at 612-625-8855 or [email protected] to arrange a discussion.
Best regards,
Steve Cawley,
Chief Information Officer and Associate
Vice President, University of Minnesota.
Senator Coleman. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask kind of a general question about one issue that
I know the chairman raised in his statement. That is this issue
of requiring folks to prove a negative, to prove, young people,
that they somehow have ties back in their homeland so that when
they are done with their education they go back. One, I think
we need to change that. I think we need to change that. I think
that we have young people who may not have spouses, they may
not own property. That should not be a barrier to studying in
this country.
But I would ask perhaps all of you just to address kind of
the broader question of what is the problem? What problem are
we trying to address with the current regulation? Is it in our
benefit to have certain young people, the best and the
brightest from Uganda or the best and the brightest from
Poland, wherever, coming here to study and then decide to stay
in the United States, to use their talents to work in our
industries and to work?
Help me. I would like to hear your reaction or your sense
of, do we really need to require students to immediately go
back after they are here, or is there a benefit from having
some of those students that you know continue to contribute to
this country?
Dr. Jischke. I think the reason for the policy--I actually
agree with your point of view, but I think the reason for the
policy is concern over competition for jobs that exist in the
United States. But the history of the country, not only in this
recent technological age, is that many of these immigrants
have, in fact, stayed in our country and provide leadership for
some of the most prominent industries of America. The
information technology industry is an example.
I think one of the issues here is a fundamental value of
our country. What we represent in the world is a place where
people from the world have come to realize the promise and the
dream of the American democracy. It is deeply rooted in our
concept of ourselves and it is deeply rooted in, I think, the
world's view of America.
It is one of the reasons we have ascended to a special kind
of leadership. It is not only our economic might and our
military might; it is the power of our ideas. We are an
inclusive country, and it seems to me in this age, instead of
coming to farm the land, if you will, which my great-
grandfather did, they are coming to learn the technology and
take their place as part of a longer tradition of immigration
growth that has made us an extraordinary place in the world, I
mean the hope of the world.
It seems to me this is who we are and we ought not to lose
sight of it and we ought to foster that kind of development. So
I very much agree with the spirit of your comments that we
ought to welcome these bright young men and women and be
thankful that they want to come to our country and be part of
this living experiment called the United States of America.
Senator Coleman. Dr. Herbert.
Dr. Herbert. Senator, I would like to respond by telling
you just a very brief story. In 1990 our university entered
into a contract with Petronas, which is the national oil
company of Malaysia. As part of that program, each year
students come from that country to study at universities in
this country. They come first to IU for the purpose of
preparing them, taking some SAT prep courses, those sorts of
things.
But what is significant is that between 1990 and 2001 we
have had over 200 of those students to come to our institution
and then go on to Harvard and other universities around the
country. In 2002 a group of these students came, they went
through the first phase of the program, then they went back
home for the summer term with the intent of coming back in the
fall to go to their respective campuses.
It is very interesting. What happened was that all of the
female students were allowed to come back; not a single one of
the male students was allowed to return to the country. This is
an ally. As a consequence of how those students were treated,
the company has discontinued the program. We are now going to
lose all of those young people who are coming here, who are
studying here, who are going to understand the values of this
country. Some of them may have decided to stay. Others may have
gone back to their country.
I do not know whether the issue here is simply one of
national security, if it is a concern about U.S. jobs, or if it
is a concern about eliminating the brain drain from some of
those countries. There are any number of possibilities. But in
the final analysis, it seems to me that what we have to
understand is that in the case of our institutions again, 30
percent of the scientists in our medical school are coming from
abroad. It hurts us significantly if we no longer have access
to that kind of talent.
In addition, we are clearly establishing very positive
long-term friendships with potential leaders--business,
education, others--in those countries from which the students
come if they do decide to return. But we need some of that
intellectual talent in this country. We cannot afford to lose
it, it is of such vital importance, not only to our
institutions, our higher education institutions, but other
parts of our society as well.
Senator Coleman. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. Just
one comment. I understand the concern about jobs. I worry,
though, that we have a 20th century mind set in the 21st
century. Senator Baucus has put together a group on global
competitiveness, and we have heard from CEOs that our ability
to grow jobs in this country is tied into having that talent.
We need to be certain that we are not taking away jobs. I do
not think that is the case. I think we are bringing the wrong
mind set. If you want to grow jobs, if you want to grow this
economy, be on the cutting edge of innovation. The CEO's that I
have talked to reflect that perspective.
[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Norm Coleman
I would first like to express my deep appreciation to the Chair for
his interest in this vitally important issue and his willingness to
make this hearing a priority in these waning days of the 108th
Congress. The chairman and I have discussed this issue at great length,
and I respect his commitment to the importance of international
exchanges.
I firmly believe that it is in America's national interest for the
best and brightest foreign students to study in America. These are
people who will lead their nations one day. The experience they gain
with our democratic system and our values gives them a better
understanding of what America is and who Americans are.
Underscoring the importance of international exchanges to our
national security, the September 11th Commission's report recommends on
page 377: ``The United States should rebuild the scholarship, exchange,
and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them
knowledge and hope. Where such assistance is provided, it should be
identified as coming from the citizens of the United States.''
In a world that hates us because they do not know us, international
education represents an opportunity to break down barriers. Foreign
students also help out economy. Higher education is a major service
sector export, bringing in $13 billion dollars to the United States
economy every year. Competitors like the U.K., Canada and Australia are
gaining market share while the U.S. is losing.
As the Chairman is well aware, I have introduced legislation, S.
2715, the International Student and Scholar Access Act. My legislation
proposes to make common-sense changes to the way visas are processed,
to encourage a coherent U.S. marketing strategy for international
education, and improvements in the way SEVIS fees are collected. I am
proud to have the co-sponsorship of Senator Bingaman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Coleman.
Reluctantly, I must bring this chapter in our hearing to a
conclusion. I say that because we have so much appreciated
having three great academic leaders before us, and likewise
vigorous participation, as you perceive, by the Senators, who
are very interested and committed to trying to make progress on
these issues for the benefit of universities, but likewise for
our country.
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, could I just add one point?
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Sarbanes. It would be helpful if the presidents
could send us their thinking. I think the question that Senator
Coleman put is quite an important question, and really I do not
think we have sorted out exactly what our rationale is, because
I do think there is a strong rationale that these students were
to come in and then go back to their countries and contribute
to the development of their own countries.
Secondly, the student visas are separate and outside of the
visa limitations for coming into the country. They do not have
to line up like others who have decided they want to leave
their country and come to the United States, which is quite a
long list and closed out in many countries for a number of
years. The students come in on a completely separate track and
therefore we have visas available to them.
But I think we have to think this through pretty carefully,
because I do think there in the past, at least, has been a
strong rationale that they are to come here, get their
education, learn the way we do things, and then go back to
their own countries and help the development of their own
countries. Now, if we are going to shift to a different
rationale, I think we need to give that some careful thought.
So it is, I think, a fairly complex problem. I just wanted to
make that observation.
The Chairman. I think the Senator's observation is very
important. In the Millennium Challenge hearing we had
yesterday, to mention the example of Georgia again, one of the
16 selected countries, these young leaders that were educated
in the United States did return to Georgia. They have
instituted an anti-corruption drive, which is totally counter-
intuitive for the entire area. Likewise, the country is
fostering a burgeoning democracy with only four million people
and very tough resources.
On the other hand, we have had testimony from Chinese and
Japanese scholars who now have businesses in both Japan and
China. They are traveling back and forth between the two
countries. The dimensions of international trade and
international business now are such that they do not have
citizenship in two countries, but by and large their wealth is
divided, and so are their employees. They are employing people
in both countries, interestingly enough. And that is not
foreign to your experience, because you see these people all
the time.
Senator Alexander. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of--on Senator
Sarbanes' point, I believe the 1952 Immigration and Nationality
Act requires that a student applicant say they do not plan on
staying in the United States upon completion of their degree.
Yet we have just heard that two-thirds of those who get Ph.D.'s
in science and engineering do.
The Chairman. And we have heard likewise that we are
grateful that they did.
Senator Alexander. But going back to his point about maybe
we need to be clear about what our rationale is here as we
examine this.
The Chairman. A very important point.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I would like to call now upon the second panel: Ms. Cotten,
Dr. Goodman, Ms. Johnson, and Dr. Kattouf.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. We thank each of you for coming today to
enrich our understanding of these important issues. I would
like for you to testify in the order that I introduced you,
which would be first of all Ms. Cotten, then Dr. Goodman, Ms.
Johnson, and Dr. Kattouf.
Let me indicate--and we will be as lenient as possible
about this--but we want to make certain that all of you are
heard, and likewise, that the Senators have an opportunity for
interchange with you. So, to the extent that you can summarize
your statements, I would appreciate that. They will be made
part of the record in full, because we want to have the full
record of all the research that you have done in preparation
for this hearing.
To the extent that you can summarize in five minutes or six
or something in that ballpark, that would be helpful, because
we know that the roll call situation is coming upon us
imminently.
Ms. Cotten.
STATEMENT OF CATHERYN COTTEN, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL OFFICE,
DUKE UNIVERSITY
Ms. Cotten. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here, and I can tell you that at Duke we could repeat the many
stories that we have heard this morning.
I come to you from an International Office, not as the
president of a university. So, as you mentioned earlier, my
office daily spends its time down in the weeds. I would like to
speak about some of the issues that we could deal with. Just
now you had asked what is statutory, what is regulatory, what
is a matter of policy. I think that is a key question to ask.
We do have some things we could do now.
I believe that Senator Coleman's bill will help address
some of the statutory problems that we have with the security
clearances, with their definition, with their repetition. But
we also have situations where visas for certain countries for
student scholars are given for the full duration of their time,
visas for other countries are given for 6 months and only two
entries. This is based entirely on an historic visa reciprocity
system out of the Department of State and, while that has
served us well, it appears not to be serving us now. So the
length of the visa and whether it is for 6 months or 4 years is
a regulatory policy determination that could be changed if we
choose to change it. That just needs appropriate discussion on
what levels of change we need to talk about.
Indeed, with the SEVIS program we have ways of tracking and
managing the students that are going to give us a closer watch
than just having them go back and repeat for visas.
Because of the differences in the lengths of visas, we have
some students who come into the country on a 4-year visa stamp,
they stay for periods of time, they come and go at their
leisure. They have no problem visiting a sick relative, they
have no problem going home for a holiday. We have the other
students on the 6-month visas, who must go through the entire
process every time they travel. So that is an area where we
could look at resolution and policy.
The other discussion today has been on 214B, which is part
of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As Mr. Alexander said,
there is statutory language that says that they must have a
residence abroad that they have no intention of abandoning.
Keeping in mind that that law was written in 1952--and I think
at the time that you were traveling to England you went by
ship--I do not think that would happen today. There were no
trans-Atlantic jet flights in 1952. The world has changed.
People travel far more often.
Consular officers to some degree under 214B were also
concerned, not about whether someone might come and stay
legally and then move on to other legal statuses, but whether
that individual might come and become illegal. So I think that
that discussion needs to be a part of the discussion on 214B
and a possible statutory change.
At the same time, there are different ways, policy ways, to
interpret 214B and whether individuals have a residence abroad
that they have no intention of abandoning now, or whether we
are asking the consular officer to do crystal balling well into
the future, 4, 5, 8 years into the future, on what they might
do at some future time.
It is also the case that the Department of State has
addressed this issue in another context. There is a cable
currently in place that permits a slightly different and more
lenient view of 214B for tourists who are coming as
cohabitating partners with people coming long-term. One would
think that we could give to students and scholars the similar
kind of benefit of the doubt that we are giving to cohabitating
partners coming on tourist visas.
So as we discuss these issues, I think that the points you
have made on statute and regulation and mere policy need to be
looked at together, and that we do have things we can do now to
solve some of these problems.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cotten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catheryn Cotten, Director, International Office,
Duke University
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on an issue of such
importance to the United States. Many international education
organizations have spoken to the value of international students and
scholars in our classrooms and research facilities, to the successes we
enjoy as a nation because of their contributions, and to the increasing
road blocks and delays that threaten that continued exchange and
success. I am including links to organization documents in the appendix
to this testimony.
This testimony will summarize the chief difficulties that
international students and scholars face in applying for visas, and
will suggest policy and procedural changes that can enhance security
while helping to make the visa application process more positive and
welcoming. Let us remember that before these students and scholars
reach the point of visa application, they have already been vetted by
the schools and programs as to their academic credentials and their
qualifications for the study or research in which they will engage. The
visa application process examines their individual circumstances
relative to security concerns and to their intent to engage in the
activities described on the visa documents provided by the school or
program. The visa stamp is only permission to apply to enter the U.S.
It is the SEVIS document, provided by the school or program, that
specifies the activities and intended length of stay. The visa stamp
may expire shortly after arrival in the U.S., but that stamp expiration
does not affect lawful status inside the U.S. The visa stamp is only
required for travel, not for remaining legally in the U.S.
I come to you representing three different, but related groups:
Duke University, whose student population is about 10% international
and whose research facilities host hundreds of scholars every year;
Duke University as one of the 21 pilot schools that helped design,
test, and launch CIPRIS, the precursor of SEVIS, and that continues to
offer information as needed; and as an American citizen who has
traveled abroad and has seen how others in the world may see us.
The United States is still the destination of choice for thousands
of students and scholars, but it has also become a destination of
academic and personal risk. Consider these representative experiences.
Imagine that your son has been admitted to four of the best
schools in world, all in different countries. He has one
special favorite in the United States on which he has placed
his hopes--all the others are his second choice. He has read
the catalogue until he can quote it. He has told all of his
friends that he has been admitted. It is only March and he is
already packing for school in September. All things being
equal, most parents would want him to go to the school of his
choice. Now suppose that four of those countries will give him
travel documents and visa stamps in 15 days. He could get those
visa stamps now, but he has not done so. He is set on attending
his favorite school. Surely the U.S. will give him a visa. He
worked so hard to be good enough to get admitted. His future
depends on it. Then he learns that it may take three months to
apply for a visa and even then he might be refused or might be
delayed past the first semester. He is still hopeful. He holds
out for the visa, does all that is required of him, but time is
getting short and still no visa. You are a parent, worried
about your child and his dreams, with limited funds for his
education, and concerned that such a delay could postpone his
education for a year or more. Finally one of those second
choices becomes the only choice because the risk of ``waiting
it out'' is just too high. He goes to one of the other schools,
but his dream is unrealized and he forever harbors a certain
bitterness toward the country that admitted him to school and
allowed him to dream and then bureaucratized that dream out of
existence. In the future it would not be surprising if none of
his siblings or cousins or acquaintances apply to schools in
the U.S. ``Why should I?'' They might argue. ``Even if they
admit me they won't let me in. I can't afford to take the
risk.''
Imagine your daughter was admitted to a school in the U.S.
and was granted a visa. She has finished her freshman year and
you are looking forward to having her home for the summer. She
calls you in March and says, ``Maybe I won't come home this
summer. Some of my friends went home for the winter break and
still haven't been able to get back because of visa delays. My
SEVIS documents cover four years, but my initial visa stamp was
for only a year and expires in early May (note that expiration
of the visa stamp is common and is not expiration of lawful
status). I would have to apply for a new visa to come back in
the fall. Mom and Dad, I just don't think I can take the risk
of not being able to come back.'' Two years later, at the end
of her junior year, she has still not been home because she is
still afraid that she cannot get a visa to come back. She loves
her studies in the U.S., but the inefficient visa system and
the long separation might make you wonder if you would send
another child to the U.S. And her loneliness might make her
wonder if she would encourage her little brother to make the
same educational choice she did.
Imagine you are a scholar whose work in a particular field
has been recognized internationally. A prestigious U.S.
university invited you to join one of its research teams for a
three-year project. You applied for your J exchange visitor
visa, and though it took three months to get it, you finally
arrived and joined the team. The team members are among the
best in the world from the U.S. and from other nations. One of
your discoveries leads to a paper published in a very selective
journal. You are invited to present your findings at the annual
international conference in your field. The conference, four
days long, is outside the U.S. The original visa stamp in your
passport has expired, and you will need a new stamp to return.
It will take at least a month, or perhaps longer, to get the
visa stamp to return to the U.S. It is your work, your paper,
your chance to meet and compare notes with colleagues from
around the world. You have an opportunity that would make you
competitive for top positions in your home country when you
return, but you cannot attend the meeting. You cannot take the
chance that you will be away from your time-sensitive research
for a month or two or more. Or alternately, you decide to take
the chance and you are stuck in a foreign country (not the U.S.
and not your home) for months with your savings and your career
slipping away. In research, as in politics, time can make all
the difference.
Remember that these are common experiences repeated hundreds of
times each year at colleges and universities across the U.S. We see
their effects in the drops in the number of college applications and
the thousands of U.S. tax dollars wasted as research projects limp
along because a key team member cannot get a visa.
WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG AND WHAT CAN WE DO?
Two primary functions of visa application and consular processing
contribute to the delays and denials, one new, one old.
The Technology Alert List (TAL), ``sensitive areas'' list, and general
security concerns
The TAL is not new, but the combined effect of the TAL with
understandable post 9/11 concerns about sensitive knowledge areas and
the resulting need to look closer at the background and affiliations of
visa applicants has created a visa review process that can take months.
We need to apply the rules efficiently, transparently, and
logically. We need to eliminate repetitive visa reviews that serve no
security purpose and that take resources from other security work. The
Department of State has worked diligently to streamline the VISAS
MANTIS clearances and to encourage and empower consular officers to
expedite visa interviews for international students and scholars. Some
processes that used to take three months have now been reduced to 30
days in many cases, but some cases still seem to get stuck in the
system for many months with no apparent reason. In addition, many
students and scholars who have undergone the reviews and obtained visas
are repeatedly subjected to the same review process. This repeat review
generally occurs not because of any new or additional concerns about
the applicants, but simply because their initial visa stamps were of
short duration, merely as an operation of visa reciprocity. Under
current visa reciprocity rules, a student or scholar from country X
gets an ``F'' student or ``J'' scholar visa stamp for the full duration
of his/her program and with multiple entries, while a student from
country Y gets an ``F'' or ``J'' stamp valid for only six months and
for only two entries. This inequities result from agreements with other
countries that have no particular relationship to security. They make
some sense in the old and longstanding visa reciprocity agreements, but
do not withstand logical scrutiny in the post-9/11 visa environment. We
are engaged in repetitive visa reviews on people that represent very
minimal security risks because we are not willing to review our own
visa policies, decide if they really serve our interests, and change
them if necessary. U.S. government resources are being wasted on second
or third administrative reviews that are only tangential to security,
if they are related at all.
Senator Coleman, in S. 2715, the International Student and Scholar
Access Act, has sought to address these issues of waste, repetition,
and delay.
Nonimmigrant intent, INA 214(b)
This law, now over 50 years old, requires that all F and J visa
applicants (and others such as B visitors) show that they have a
residence abroad that they have no intention of abandoning.
DOS needs to rethink INA 214(b), the ``nonimmigrant intent'' rule,
and accept documentation in SEVIS that the visa applicant is a student
or scholar as evidence of temporary intent (i.e. to be a student or
exchange visitor) absent demonstrable evidence to the contrary. Such
evidence might include the filing of a labor certification or immigrant
petition or application on behalf of the alien, or very close family
ties in the U.S. that have an immediate potential for immigration. The
nonimmigrant intent rule should apply only to maintaining legal status
during this activity and for this purpose identified on the visa
application, not to the possibility that the student might legally
acquire another status in the distant future.
DOS has considered and addressed similar intent issues related to B
visitor visas in its policy on cohabitating partners, and has
implemented a more open policy. While that policy states that the
individual must meet the nonimmigrant intent rule of INA 214(b), it
also says that long-term stays in the U.S. with partners in extended
status is expected and acceptable. It goes on to say that consular
officers should make appropriate annotations on the visa, ``as that
will increase the likelihood that the inspector grants the maximum
possible admission period on initial entry and will facilitate
subsequent extensions.'' The substance of the cable tells consular
officers that it is OK to give long term ``B'' tourist visas to
cohabitating partners, and that it is OK not to worry too much if they
might stay in the U.S. for a long time. It authorizes the consular
office to give the cohabitating partner the ``benefit of the doubt''
when issuing the visa.
If nonimmigrant intent can be viewed as related to a particular
visit that has a variable and unspecified end date for the purpose of
admitting cohabiting partners for extended stays, why can't a similar
interpretation and visa issuance practice apply to students and
scholars? Indeed, unlike the B-2 cohabitating partner, who may have no
definite completion date, the F or J student or scholar carries
documents that specify a precise end date. Shouldn't a student or
scholar be given the same ``benefit of the doubt'' as a cohabitating
partner?
When the law was written in 1952 most transoceanic travel was done
by ship, and no transatlantic commercial passenger jet flight had yet
occurred. It would be another six years before the first such jet
flight, and well into the 1960s before jet travel became common. When
travel was so difficult, so burdensome, and so infrequent, it was
important for a consular officer to see exceedingly strong evidence
that the student or scholar to whom he was giving a visa had very
strong ties to the home country, and did not intend to use that visa to
enter the U.S. fraudulently and remain here illegally. People travel
much more easily and frequently now, but the validity of the 1952
interpretation of the law in the student and scholar context has had
only minimal review.
Because people can travel more frequently, our application of the
law to make that travel very high risk has the opposite effect of that
intended. The student or scholar who wishes to travel frequently, and
is permitted to do so by a reasonable visa process, maintains ties to
home and establishes and develops business relationships that will draw
him back to his home country. The student or scholar who is threatened
with visa delays and denial if he leaves will remain in the U.S. for
three, or five, or eight years getting a degree or doing research. He
will not take the risk of going home, and so finds it nearly impossible
to maintain those close ties. His choice not to travel has protected
him from visa review, but has also isolated him from the family and
business relationships that would have drawn him back home. It is easy
to guess which one of these people is likely to become a positive voice
for America at home and in other countries. Our current visa policies,
in stifling travel, also stifles those voices.
Secretary Powell has begun the much-needed conversation on this
nonimmigrant intent issue in his guidance to consular officers in a 30
March 2004 cable to the field. Nevertheless, the underlying assumption
still remains that nonimmigrant intent applies in a kind of perpetuity.
Not only must the student or scholar show that he has ties in the home
country now that will likely cause him to return, but also that he will
not, at some future time years from now, change his mind and remain in
the U.S. legally. The burden on consular officers to read the mind and
``crystal ball'' the future of a student or scholar who is primarily
focused on the next few months, not the next 10 years, is completely
unreasonable.
what can sevis do and how can we use it better?
Although SEVIS is under the purview of DHS, the SEVIS database can
assist and inform consular officers in their visa deliberations and can
help relieve the consular burden if we choose to use it to do so.
The Original Vision
As one of the 21 pilot schools Duke University helped design the
database management system that is today known as SEVIS. When work on
what was then called the CIPRIS project began in the mid 1990s, Mr.
Maurice Berez, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officer
in charge of the project, shared with participant schools a vision of
an integrated system. SEVIS would be the work horse database that would
organize and streamline student and scholar processing from school
admission, through visa application, entry at the port, participation
in the program, travel during the program, and final completion. It
would provide a range of data on each individual to different
government agencies. It would identify those students and scholars who
were maintaining status and pursing the studies, teaching, and research
for which they came to the U.S., and it would also identify those few
who failed to do so. SEVIS would:
Collect data from the ``source'' for each data element. For
example, schools should enter educational data, consular posts
and ports of entry should enter visa and port data
respectively, and INS (now DHS) should enter stateside
immigration actions related to the student or exchange visitor.
Provide information to all relevant administrative and law
enforcement agencies as appropriate for the need of that
agency.
Serve as and be recognized as evidence of status and lawful
activity for the students and exchange visitors listed in it.
Contribute significantly to national security by providing a
broad range of data on individual students and exchange
visitors and their host schools and institutions that could be
subjected to algorithms and statistical analysis. Such data
review could reveal fact patterns or anomalies on individuals
or groups that might need additional scrutiny or investigation.
This data, combined with information from other databases,
could help identify the few who might pose a threat to our
national security.
Facilitate the admission to the U.S. and lawful activities
in the U.S. of the many bona fide international students and
exchange visitors. Treat them as welcomed guests, and make
their visa application, admission to the U.S., and subsequent
travel easy and efficient.
INS and the schools worked together toward a system that would use
practical and logical means to manage data and to use that data not
only to solve problems, but also to add value for all users. The
practical applications included:
Issue a student and exchange visitor ID card, something like
the Border Crossing Card, that could be used by consular posts,
ports, and DHS offices to identify the individual and access
SEVIS data. This card would serve in place of the paper Form I-
20 and Form DS-2019, both of which would be eliminated.
Give consular posts full access to SEVIS so that officers
would have all the information available on a visa applicant.
That information would, in some cases, not only include current
F or J student or scholar data, but also information on prior
stays in the U.S.
Establish SEVIS intake facilities at the major ports. Allow
students and exchange visitors to go to a special line or area
at the port to have their admissions processed by officers who
were familiar with SEVIS and with student and exchange visitor
issues. Make that process friendly and welcoming. Establish
automated processes that would allow the students or exchange
visitors to swipe their SEVIS ID cards and have their
biometrics and identification verified electronically. In this
way they would be treated more like frequent business travelers
who have similar services. This special recognition would
reinforce the fact that we value their contributions to the
U.S. In addition we would gain security by subjecting each
entry to biometrics verification and to verification that the
student or exchange visitor is currently considered by his/her
school or program to be in status and pursuing appropriate
activities. The airport in Atlanta tested and used some of
these components of admission as part of CIPRIS/SEVIS
development.
Connect employment authorization to the SEVIS ID card so
that the degree and research related employment already
provided for in the law and regulations could be authorized and
tracked via the card. It would document whether a student is
working on campus on an assistantship or working with an
outside employer in required degree related work (example:
field work for the Masters in Social Work). Employers would
have a secure document upon which to rely for employment
verification. The Social Security Administration would have
access to SEVIS for their purposes as well.
The SEVIS of Today
By the year 2001 most of the initial development was completed, and
the 21 schools were fully converted to the prototype CIPRIS system, INS
was well into writing and testing the final, and more robust SEVIS
software based on the CIPRIS model. INS was planning the transition to
the new, full SEVIS system and was mapping out a structured, measured
roll-out across the country.
The attacks on 9/11 and the discovery that at least some, though by
no means all of the perpetrators had, at some time, had student status,
precipitated the urgent and immediate full implementation of SEVIS.
Unfortunately, SEVIS was not ready for full implementation as it had
been envisioned. What the schools and the nation got was essentially a
scaled down beta test version. Both the schools and INS had to struggle
to make it meet the demands placed on it. School international offices
were literally in lock down mode for weeks as all staff members sat at
computers putting in 20-hour days to manually enter massive amounts of
data on hundreds of thousands of students and scholars. SEVIS, itself
was full of yet to be discovered programming errors and unanticipated
collateral ``features.'' INS employees were also ``sleeping in their
offices'' to deal with cascading problems.
Since that first launch SEVIS has been through many upgrades.
Schools and DHS (legacy INS) have suffered and continue to suffer
through arcane work arounds and jury rigged ``data deceptions'' to try
to give the system accurate information in circumstances where the
programming was not in place to take the data. DHS has worked
cooperatively with schools and higher education organizations to
identify and deal with problems. As with nurturing a premature baby,
there was a lot of catching up to even approach the level performance
from SEVIS that we would have expected had INS been allowed to develop
it properly before launch.
During 2003-2004 academic year, schools were fully integrated into
SEVIS and other groups such as consular posts and the Social Security
Administration have now come on-line, though some to only a limited
degree. Consular posts are beginning to see data that is useful in
their visa deliberations and ports of entry are beginning to trust the
database more than the I-20 and DS-2019 forms presented by the student
or scholar, which is exactly what should happen. A paper form is
static, but the schools update the SEVIS database constantly as
circumstances change for their students or scholars. Ports can now
consult SEVIS regarding the admission. For example a port officer
reviewing a student's SEVIS file can learn that the I-20 document that
the student carries and the visa stamp in the passport, both of which
appear to be valid, relate, in fact, to a SEVIS record that has been
invalidated by the school because the student withdrew from school last
semester. He is no longer a student and is no longer admissible to the
U.S. in that status.
Government agencies that have access to SEVIS need to use it to
provide information on students and scholars. At the same time, they
need to be informed about how to interpret what they see, and to
contact schools and programs with questions before taking negative
action based solely on SEVIS data. For example, a ``completed''
notation on a bachelor's program should not necessarily be interpreted
as completion of SEVIS student or scholar status. It may mean only that
the bachelor's has been completed and that the student is moving on to
a higher degree.
SEVIS as a Tool to Serve International Education and the Nation
SEVIS holds many data elements on students and scholars from many
sources. The schools and other users provide ongoing updates. As
mandated by Congress, SEVIS is or soon will be interoperable with many
other agency and law enforcement databases. We need to continue to
develop it and make it the tool it was envisioned to be, and we need to
use that tool.
Based on the current and future capabilities of SEVIS and related
databases, and on the policy and procedure changes discussed elsewhere
in this testimony, we can identify ways that SEVIS could serve to
welcome students and scholars to the U.S. It could expedite their
travel and return and inform the higher education community on trends
in international education, while at the same time providing important
security information to law enforcement.
Issue a SEVIS student and exchange visitor ID card,
something like the Border Crossing Card, that can be used by
consular posts, ports, and DHS offices to identify the
individual and access SEVIS data. Allow this card to serve in
place of the paper Form I-20 and DS-2019.
Use the SEVIS database and its ID card to manage the travel
of students and exchange visitors to the U.S., to monitor their
academic and related immigration activities while in the U.S.,
and to allow them to leave and reenter the U.S. in an efficient
and timely manner.
Once the student obtains the initial visa stamp, have the ID
card serve as ongoing automatic revalidation of the visa stamp
while the student or exchange visitor is carried as active in
SEVIS. This would eliminate the need to apply for visa
extensions at consular posts without compromising security.
Remember that SEVIS holds various kinds of ID data that law
enforcement can use to run algorithms to search for fact
patterns or data clusters that might indicate security
concerns. If this infonnation is available 24/7 to law
enforcement, what purpose is served by filing a new visa
application at a consular post? Further, appropriate government
agencies would be immediately informed through the SEVIS system
when degrees have been completed or employment has ended,
signaling that the visa validation had also ended.
Use SEVIS and connected databases to record and examine
other immigration actions that an individual might take that
would indicate immigrant intent. Those actions could then be
the basis for review of ``intent to return'' rather than
requiring consular officers to examine the same unchanged
circumstances time after time in repeated visa applications.
DOS and DHS could deal directly with students and scholars thus
identified to determine if the visa should remain valid.
Allow schools, if they wish, to establish 24/7 contact
numbers for consular and port officers so that questions can be
addressed quickly and easily. Maintain these contact numbers in
the SEVIS database, making them easily accessible to government
users. During the mass transition to SEVIS, DHS-ICE asked
schools to establish such contacts, and, in our experience, it
worked beautifully.
Give schools and other organizations access to national
SEVIS data (numbers, not individuals). This was part of the
original SEVIS planning, but has been forgotten in the
aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent focus on security
concerns. SEVIS should be used to enhance our security, but we
should also use it to inform the discussion on international
higher education. Consider the wealth of data available on
fields of study, countries of origin, levels of study, areas of
teaching and research, and so on that could be useful as
individual data elements, and a treasure for statistical
analysis of trends in international education and research.
Imagine the collaborative efforts that could emerge among U.S.
schools as they learn where certain concentrations of field
specific knowledge or relevant research lie.
Use SEVIS to populate the annual Open Doors census. Again,
this was part of the original SEVIS planning. Currently Open
Doors has only the data from schools that are willing to
respond to its survey. SEVIS could provide data on every
student or exchange visitor who holds ``F,'' ``M,'' or ``J''
(students and exchange visitors) visa status.
Give students and scholars limited access to their own files
to see what their records show and to facilitate correction of
errors, if any, through their schools or through DHS. Control
access through the SEVIS number as an identifier. As with all
SEVIS users, the information to which they would have access
should be filtered to include only those elements appropriate
for their review.
The SEVIS Fee
The fact of the SEVIS fee and its amount are, at this time, of much
less concern than the way it will be collected and the way refunds and
overpayments will be managed. Making the payment of the SEVIS fee a
separate action creates one more procedural and time hurdle for the
small ``summer months'' window in which a new student must apply for a
visa. It also says, in a very identifiable way, ``We intend to charge
you more and we want to make it difficult for you.'' Beyond the payment
process are concerns regarding credits to proper accounts, refunds, and
corrections for overpayment.
Incorporate the SEVIS fee into the visa application payment
so that the student or exchange visitor does not have to
coordinate payment of two separate fees. While the total cost
will be the same, making the process easier shows that we want
to make coming to the U.S. possible and reasonably achievable.
Refund the fee if no student or exchange visitor visa is
issued. While the visa application fee may be nonrefundable,
the SEVIS fee should only be charged for a true benefit. The
SEVIS fee benefit only occurs if the student or exchange
visitor is permitted to come to the U.S.
Refund duplicate fees to the party or parties that paid
them. Anyone can pay the fee for a student or scholar, which
means that the school or a friend in the U.S. could pay it.
This creates the very real potential for more than one person
or organization to attempt to pay the fee for the same student
or scholar. The fee should be paid by the first payment
received and refunds should be provided to all other payers.
what is really at stake?
American citizen who has traveled internationally, even in short
trips to Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean, can tell you that people
outside the U.S. see us differently than we see ourselves. We cannot
control all of the press and propaganda machines of the world. Others
will always speak for us and about us. Our only successful response
will be a strong voice speaking up for ourselves, and we must speak to
individuals.
Most people here and abroad do not doubt that the U.S. media and
entertainment industry has permeated most of the world with images of
America that can make us proud or make us shudder with disgust. Those
images go unmediated and unexplained into homes around the world. We
cannot control how people receive and interpret those images.
But international education is the ``real thing.'' It is an
experience of America of the highest quality among friends, colleagues,
and faculty that can challenge assumptions, obliterate stereotypes,
embrace diversity, and empower minds to grow beyond the lessons of
image and propaganda to the lessons and experiences of an open society.
On our campuses and in our laboratories social argument meets community
cooperation, political ``enemies'' find workable compromise, and the
pure passion for knowledge fuels the relentless logic of science. The
Center for Jewish Life provides meeting space for a discussion on
religion and ethics in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. A student from
a country with a repressive government participates in her first
political demonstration in support of a women's shelter and the shelter
is saved. A young scientist is proud and amazed to be asked to ``take
charge'' of a particular component of a research project even though he
is a ``foreigner'' and not yet even 35 years old!
People around the world want what we have to offer for a thousand
different personal reasons, some of which they can't even identify
themselves until after they arrive. Allow me to share a few human
moments.
Duke sponsored a young man to do research in the J-1
exchange visitor status. His work went very well and he
published a paper as ``first author'' (an academic indication
that the research and the discoveries were primarily his). He
was asked to present the paper at a conference. He came into my
office to check his documents for travel, and in that
conversation said, ``At home I would never have been allowed to
do this. I would never be first author or present.'' I asked
why, assuming his answer would be no money or space for
research. Instead he explained, ``They maybe might have let me
do the research, but they never would have given me credit as
first author. In America you recognize people for what they do,
for their own work.'' Turns out in his own country he was the
wrong family, wrong social class, wrong color. By the time he
left the U.S. he had a publication record that would open doors
around the world. This happened before 9/11, and he was able to
do that presentation and return to the U.S. to complete his
project. Today he would probably be afraid to leave because he
couldn't get back.
In March of 2004 I spent three weeks in Egypt and Jordan as
a visitor. In that short time I met three very different people
for whom America was a distant but real place of learning and
opportunity.
A young middle school student showed me medals she had won
in international competitions in gymnastics and school
competitions in English language, literature, and poetry.
She was looking forward to applying to U.S. colleges in a
few years.
A man in his late forties spoke with pride about his son
who had gone to America to college and had come home to
build a very good life for himself and his family. His
grandchildren will see America as a place of generosity and
opportunity for a better life for those who are willing to
work hard and learn. They may apply to school here.
A young man of 16 or 17 talked about studying in America
someday. He had learned English and he kept up with the
global news and current events. Politics seemed to be his
passion. He said to me, ``Tell your president, Mr. Bush,
that Egyptians want peace but it must be fair. You tell
him, we want peace, but it must be fair.''
This last comment is perhaps one of the most instructive, not for
the political content, the discussion of which belongs in another
venue, but because it tells us how very much we can gain if we support
international education and solve these visa issues, and how much we
can lose if we allow that support to languish. This young man's core
assumption, not subject to doubt, was that any American could go back
and talk to her government, could convey a message to her president.
And he was right. Even more importantly, he spoke of fairness, of this
very American characteristic of equal recognition, of doing the right
thing, of rewarding merit. When we open the door through admitting
students and inviting scholars, and then build a barricade across that
open door with unreasonable and illogical visa processes, we are being
profoundly unfair in a way that shouts ``Unwelcome!'' to each
individual.
The few with evil intent will always try to practice evil against
us. No level of security can keep them out and keep us 100% safe. Our
real security, our future, our success as a part of the global
community, depends on the understanding and good will of our neighbors.
It depends on that researcher of the ``wrong color'' making a
difference in his part of the world in the way people think about him
and about others. It depends on that young gymnast whose bilingual
poetry may someday bring Arabic and English speakers to common
understanding. It depends on that eager young man who, if he is allowed
to realize his dreams in a U.S. college, may influence hundreds or
thousands by sharing his experiences. It depends on all those who, if
allowed to enter our universities and research facilities and to travel
freely, will spread the message of democracy, not in speeches and
political tracts, but in being what America lets them be, in showing
others the confidence and success that comes from the American
experience, in contributing their knowledge, their skills, and their
understanding of America to the world.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that testimony, which
is very thoughtful. It incorporates comments from the first
panel and our questions, and concisely directs our attention to
something about which I think there is consensus among the
Senators here to tackle. We thank you.
Dr. Goodman.
STATEMENT OF ALLAN E. GOODMAN, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
Dr. Goodman. Thank you, Senator, for focusing the Senate
and the country on this topic and for this committee's
unwavering support for the Fulbright Educational Exchange
Program. Without Fulbright, there would be a lot less
international education for our country and others. We also
appreciate your personal interest in the Ford International
Fellowship Program which you helped launch with us a few years
ago.
I would like to briefly address just three questions: What
do the numbers tell us about the past half century, what lies
ahead for the next several years, and what strategic steps
could we take to make a difference right now?
In the appendix to my statement, I try to display in a set
of facts, ``Fast Facts,'' that show what the past half century
looks like. International education in America has grown in
periods of sharp increases followed by plateaus. Lots of
factors contribute to making that happen: turmoil in the
countries that students are coming from, conflict on the
international or regional scene, economic slowdowns, their
policies and our policies, as well as competition.
Sometimes our visa policies discourage students, and
sometimes, as we heard this morning, a country like Taiwan has
a policy which provides disincentives for their students to
study here. In recent years, we have heard about disincentives
in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and China.
All of these factors are at work today. Recently, in India,
the largest sending country, the Hindustan Times of New Delhi
published a lead editorial. It suggested that, while America is
the first choice for Indian students to study abroad and that
visa regulations ``are a speed bump, not a red light,'' we face
a lot of competition, especially from Australia and the United
Kingdom, where Indian students are increasingly going. American
higher education is described as exorbitantly expensive. In
addition, Indians are less interested in the opportunity to
stay behind after their education is complete because
globalization is creating good jobs back at home.
That diagnosis and these mix of factors is the reality that
we face. We have also heard, and we agree, that there are
instances of decline. We are now in a period of plateau. It
will deeply affect major research institutions in America and
therefore American science and technology, and it will affect
some disciplines, particularly math and computer sciences,
where we think we will show either a plateau or a decline.
But what nobody can match is America's open doors and our
capacity. We hear a lot about the organized campaigns in
Australia and the United Kingdom to recruit students from
elsewhere, but the 39 institutions of higher education in
Australia and the 259 institutions of higher education in the
United Kingdom simply do not have the capacity to take the
students that our 4,000 colleges and universities do.
Significantly, we currently have 600,000 foreign students
in America. Half of them are enrolled at just 80 schools. So
America has open doors, and it also has room to accommodate
what I think will be tremendous growth after this plateau in
the demand for higher education abroad.
We could do three things now that would make a big
difference. There is, with respect to SEVIS and the collection
of the fee, a very strong pilot program on how you could
harness the power of Western Union's quick pay system so that
students everywhere could meet that financial obligation. If it
works, it should be global.
Secondly, in my statement I said that I hoped that our own
Foreign Service Institute officers in the consular course would
be taught more about the value of international education. I am
happy to note that the Assistant Secretary for Consular
Affairs, Mara Hardy, personally addresses every new foreign
service class, the A-100 class, on the value of international
education. If we could build that into the consular curriculum,
it would further underscore the importance of this.
As my colleagues have said, one thing we could do
immediately that would ease the burden of the State Department
and ease the anxiety of the students would be to grant visas
for the entire course of their degree. That single step would
assure that we have both open doors and the appropriate secure
borders.
We stand, America stands, for unparalleled international
education opportunity. The students that are here now and the
ones that are coming tomorrow and in the years ahead will win
the Nobel Prizes of the future. They will cure cancer, discover
a vaccine for HIV-AIDS, and become, as you noted at the
beginning, Senator, leaders of countries on whom the success in
all the wars we face--disease, poverty, and terrorism--will
ultimately depend.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Goodman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Allan E. Goodman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Institute of International Education
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Allan Goodman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of International
Education. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to discuss an
issue of critical import to the field of education. America needs a
visa policy that supports and encourages international students to seek
an education here in the United States and that keeps our borders
secure.
It is a particular honor to appear before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, which was once chaired by Senator J. William
Fulbright. He created the nation's flagship educational exchange
program, which the Institute administers on behalf of the Department of
State. Through the years, this committee has strongly endorsed the
importance of all the programs funded under the Fulbright-Hays Act.
They are the best investments the country can make towards a less
dangerous world.
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION BY THE NUMBERS
The United States is the destination of choice for most foreign
students seeking to study abroad. The education available at our 4,000
accredited colleges and universities is recognized and envied around
the world. While other countries are actively competing to increase
their share of internationally mobile students, none match America's
diversity and capacity. There are more seats in higher education in
California, for example, than in all of China. Only nine countries in
the entire world have more institutions of higher education than the
states of California and New York. To retain our leadership position,
however, it is vital that the U.S. continue to be recognized as a
welcoming host to all those legitimately seeking education and training
abroad.
To assist the Committee in understanding trends in the flow of
international students, as well as such things as their countries of
origin, states where they are studying, fields of study and data about
the international student market share, I am attaching ``Fast Facts:
Open Doors 2003'' to these remarks. They demonstrate, in summary:
Total International Student Enrollment
In 2002/2003, there were 586,323 international students
studying in the U.S., which represents a 0.6% increase,
following the previous two years' 6.4% increases.
While the 0.6% increase is the smallest increase since 1995,
there have been periods of strong growth followed by periods of
slow growth throughout the history of the International Student
Census of the Open Doors Report on International Educational
Exchange.
Leading Places of Origin
International students from Asia, particularly from India,
China, and Korea, represent a growing concentration in
international student enrollments in U.S. higher education.
Students from the leading four places of origin (India,
China, Korea, Japan) comprise 40% of all international students
in the U.S.
Fields of Study
Nearly half of all international students in the U.S. are
studying in just three fields of study: business and
management, engineering, and math and computer sciences.
Business continues to be the top field of study, but
engineering has increased steadily, with a nearly 10% increase
from the previous year, reflecting substantial growth in Indian
and Chinese graduate student enrollments over the past five
years.
International Student Market Share
U.S. market share of international students has declined
since 1997; Australia and the United Kingdom are the biggest
competitor countries, and have formulated and articulated
national strategies for recruiting international students,
unlike the U.S.
International students are a large percentage of the overall
higher education enrollments in Australia and the United
Kingdom, but the international student total in those two
nations is not even half of the U.S. international student
total.
The trends we have noted lead us to believe that there is a
leveling off of foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. Based on
early feedback from campuses we anticipate enrollments continuing to
soften--and perhaps show slight declines overall. Individual campuses
and academic disciplines may also show steep declines. Initial data
indicates that enrollment in mathematics and computer sciences will be
down this year. This will have a particularly serious effect for the
country's major research universities.
THE INSTITUTE'S HISTORY
IIE's commitment to this goal began in 1919, as America was turning
inward after the devastation of World War I. IIE was created by Stephen
P. Duggan, a distinguished professor of diplomatic history, and two
Nobel Laureates, Elihu Root, who served in this body on your Committee
on Expenditures in the Department of State, and Nicholas Murray Butler,
the President of Columbia University, who believed that America needed
to stay engaged in the world community and that international
educational exchange could lead to a more peaceful future.
Eighty years ago, the Institute led a national effort to insure
that international students would not be turned away as America's doors
were closing to many kinds of foreign immigrants. At that time, many
students and scholars were being detained at Ellis Island because U.S.
law classified them as immigrants subject to highly restrictive quotas,
which had been imposed in 1917. The Institute took the position that
academics were really temporary visitors and succeeded in having them
so classified in 1921. The Institute then developed a standard
application form for foreign students so they could be easily
identified and processed by university officials as well as by U.S.
consular officers, a process that led to creation of the non-immigrant
``student visa''. We also published for many years a Guide Book for
Foreign Students in the United States that explained U.S. immigration
laws and advised students on these and other issues to be considered in
planning for academic studies here.
Throughout this period, we worked closely with Members of Congress
and the Commissioners of what were then the Bureaus of Immigration and
of Education, as well as with officials in the Department of State. We
did this, as the first president of the Institute wrote, because ``our
experience . . . justifies the belief that international good-will can
hardly fail to result from the coming of the foreign student'' and that
``upon them, to a great extent, may depend the attitude adopted by
their countrymen towards our country.''
Nothing has happened over the years to change this belief--or to
make mutual understanding any less important. Indeed, our founders'
concerns in 1919 seem even more urgent today, as we are again engaged
in a national debate on the importance of keeping America's doors open
to students, scholars, and other professionals coming here to pursue
their educational goals.
HOW AMERICA BENEFITS
With more than 50 years of experience in administering the
Fulbright Program on behalf of the Department of State, we also know
that educational exchange programs, and in particular, those under the
Fulbright umbrella, are the best investment that America can make in
reducing misunderstanding of our culture, our people and our policies.
An educational experience in America pays dividends to our nation's
public diplomacy over many years. More than 50 of the world leaders
called by President Bush and Secretary Powell to join the coalition
fighting terrorism studied in the United States or came to America
early in their careers as part of the International Visitor Program
which we also assist the Department of State in administering. The
Department's special initiatives in the Middle East, North Africa and
non-Arab Islamic countries have created opportunities for thousands
more emerging leaders from those countries to have a positive
experience in the U.S.
There are other benefits to having foreign students on our
campuses. I was a professor at the Georgetown University School of
Foreign Service for 20 years before assuming my current position at the
Institute. What I know from that experience is that, with foreign
students in your class, you teach differently--and better. They come
into the classroom with a very different worldview from American
students. Raised in a different culture with a different history, they
enrich the classroom discussion and share their global perspectives
with American classmates, many of whom may never have the opportunity
to study or travel abroad.
According to IIE's data, published annually in Open Doors, less
than 200,000 American students study abroad for credit each year, a
tiny fraction of approximately 15 million enrolled in U.S. colleges and
universities. For the vast majority who will never study abroad,
academic dialog with foreign students on U.S. campuses may well be
their only training opportunity before entering careers which will
almost certainly be global, whether in business, government, academia,
or the not-for-profit sector.
Foreign students, especially in the sciences and engineering at the
graduate level, often provide the necessary pool of teaching assistants
needed to serve American undergraduate students, and to support faculty
teaching and research at the leading U.S. universities. American
students are simply not applying in sufficient numbers at the graduate
level in these disciplines to support many of the fields in which
America needs manpower and brainpower to sustain its academic edge and
its groundbreaking research activities.
In addition to their intellectual contributions to the U.S.,
international students make important financial contributions to their
host institution and to the local communities in which they live during
their stay. Each year, students from abroad bring some $12 billion into
the U.S. economy, making educational exchange one of the leading
American service export industries, according the U.S. Department of
Commerce. About two-thirds of foreign students in the U.S. are
supported primarily with personal funds from abroad; for many states,
the tuition, fees and living expenses paid by international students
exceed the revenues generated by professional football and basketball
combined.
OPEN DOORS REQUIRE SECURE BORDERS
Heated policy debate and extensive media coverage have focused on
the need to eliminate the potential for abuse of student visas, while
maintaining reasonable access for the many students who legitimately
study here (and often become life-long friends, allies and trading
partners for America when they return home.) We must balance these two
goals in a way that insures that America remains the destination of
choice for the best and brightest students from around the world.
We support the fundamental steps taken to increase scrutiny of
candidates who are applying for student visas and the computerized
record keeping that tracks their academic progress while in the United
States. These improved systems help increase the certainty that the
nearly 600,000 foreign students in this country, plus some 150,000
other international visitors and a like number of dependents, remain in
legal visa status, fully engaged in the studies, research or other
activities they came here to pursue. The success of the system relies
on the professionalism of the nationwide network of foreign student
advisors who work diligently and year-round to sort out the complex
visa requirements as they affect each student's unique personal
circumstances. While the new requirements have increased their workload
and added substantial costs at the campus level, U.S. higher education
has risen to the challenge and installed the new systems as quickly as
required, working closely with the U.S. government to meet statutory
deadlines.
OTHER OBSTACLES
But there are still some obstacles to be overcome.
The U.S. Department of State, through its embassies abroad, needs
to communicate regularly and clearly the requirements and time
constraints confronting international students applying for visas to
study in the United States. The Department has already started posting
such information on its website, which is very helpful to international
students in their planning for the visa process, and a number of U.S.
Ambassadors have issued very helpful statements to the local press
about America's commitment to international education and our readiness
to accept students from abroad.
SOLUTIONS
And, as Secretary Powell has urged, and I could not agree more
whole heartedly, U.S. Embassy staff must find ways to expedite the visa
review process so that students are not still waiting for visa approval
back home as their academic program begins here in America. Consular
staff at each U.S. Embassy is thinly stretched by the new screening and
interview requirements. They need to assure that their procedures
facilitate the handling of visa applicants expeditiously and
respectfully, despite heavy caseloads and increased screening
requirements. This would send the most important signal that our doors
are open to legitimate students from abroad. They need to project the
impression that students from abroad are welcome in the U.S., in spite
of the heavy workloads and the often-challenging review process that
confronts legitimate students and scholars seeking to come here.
Thankfully, my colleagues and I hear increasingly that State Department
officers abroad are doing just that.
Second. The Foreign Service Institute should review its consular
training curriculum to assure that new officers are fully aware of the
value of international educational exchange to America.
Third. One way of reducing consular officers' workload would be to
reduce the number of times U.S. officials must review the records of
students and scholars already approved. Currently, students and
scholars, especially those in important scientific and technical
fields, face lengthy delays as they must reapply for visa approval each
time they return home, even for short visits during holiday breaks. IIE
and the entire higher education community urge that visa approval be
awarded for their entire study period in the United States, freeing
consular officers to spend more time on new applicants. And those
already approved for U.S. study would not face unreasonable concern
that their desire to attend an academic conference outside the United
States, or go home to visit family or attend to personal business may
jeopardize their ability to reenter the U.S. and complete their studies
or research here.
Fourth. The process by which the SEVIS fees are collected abroad
also needs to be reviewed, so that students without home-country access
to U.S. currency or credit cards are not excluded from access to U.S.
higher education. There are some experiments being conducted in high
volume countries such as China and India, which need to be evaluated
and replicated quickly if they prove successful. If not, other means
need to be devised to insure that students are not deterred from even
applying to study by procedural or logistical hurdles.
ACCURATE INFORMATION
The American public also needs better and less sensationalized
information on the visa issue. Because of inaccurate media coverage,
some still believe that most of the September 11 terrorists came to the
U.S. on student visas, when in fact only one of the 19 was on such a
visa, which had been fraudulently obtained and had already expired.
Americans need to know about the rigorous screening process now in
place through which foreign students are admitted to our colleges and
universities, and awarded visa approval. They also need to be better
informed about the benefits that international students bring to the
local communities in which they are studying, to the campuses that
enroll them, and to the vast majority of American students who will not
themselves have a chance to study abroad. We urge this Committee to
consider making its own annual statement on international education as
a part of how America celebrates International Education Week, which
this year is November 15th to 19th.
We will do our part. The Institute's annual census of international
student mobility, Open Doors, which we publish with the support of the
Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, is
shared with the widest possible circle of journalists and others
writing about trends in higher education. Institute experts will
continue to update this annual census with online surveys and periodic
briefings and fact sheets to keep the public informed.
CONCLUSION
U.S. leadership in support of international education remains
central to the kind of world in which we are going to live. A few weeks
after 9/11, I had a visit from the Director of the Ministry of
Education and Research of Germany. We spoke at some length about the
need to keep the educational doors of both of our countries as open as
possible. After our discussion he wrote that ``We learnt from the
United States how enriching it is to win the interest and support of
the brightest minds from all over the world and we trust in your
country to remain as open as it has been in the past. If you closed
your borders . . . again you would set a model that others would follow
all too soon.''
The international educational opportunities that America stands for
benefit our society and the world. In fact, 29 alumni of the Fulbright
Program, as well as 15 other grantees of the Institute and four of our
Trustees have won Nobel Prizes. They are listed in an attachment
hereto. Some of the international students that are here today will win
the Nobel prizes of the future. In the process, they may well cure
cancer, discover a vaccine for HIV/AIDS, and become the leaders of the
governments upon which ultimate success in all the wars we are
fighting--against poverty, disease and terrorism--will depend.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, and I
look forward to working with you and your staff in the future as you
address these important issues.
______
Fast Facts: Open Doors 2003
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN THE U.S.
Total international student enrollment. In 2002/2003, the number of
international students in the U.S. increased slightly, after five years
of stronger growth rates. Periods of sharp increases since 1954,
followed by plateaus, can be seen in the line graph below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual %
Year Int'l students change Total enrollment % Int'l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1954/55........................................... 34,232 .......... 2,499,800 1.4
1964/65........................................... 82,045 9.7 5,320,000 1.5
1974/75........................................... 154,580 2.3 10,321,500 1.5
1984/85........................................... 342,113 0.9 12,467,700 2.7
1994/95........................................... 452,653 0.6 14,554,016 3.1
1995/96........................................... 453,787 0.3 14,419,252 3.1
1996/97........................................... 457,984 0.9 14,286,478 3.1
1997/98........................................... 481,280 5.1 *13,294,221 3.6
1998/99........................................... 490,933 2.0 13,391,401 3.6
1999/00........................................... 514,723 4.8 13,584,998 3.8
2000/01........................................... 547,867 6.4 14,046,659 3.9
2001/02........................................... 582,996 6.4 13,511,149 4.3
2002/03........................................... 586,323 0.6 **12,853,627 4.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*In 1997 the College Board changed its data collection process.
**College Board Annual Survey of Colleges data on U.S. higher education enrollment.
INTERNATIIONAL STUDENT TOTALS BY LEADING PLACES OF ORIGIN, 2001/02 AND 2002/03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002/03 % of
Rank Place of origin 2001/02 2002/03 2002/03 % U.S. Int'l
change student total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................... India.................... 66,836 74,603 11.6 12.7
2.................... China.................... 63,211 64,757 2.4 11.0
3.................... Korea, Republic of....... 49,046 51,519 5.0 8.8
4.................... Japan.................... 46,810 45,960 -1.8 7.8
5.................... Taiwan................... 28,930 28,017 -3.2 4.8
6.................... Canada................... 26,514 26,513 0.0 4.5
7.................... Mexico................... 12,518 12,801 2.3 2.2
8.................... Turkey................... 12,091 11,601 -4.1 2.0
9.................... Indonesia................ 11,614 10,432 -10.2 1.8
10................... Thailand................. 11,606 9,982 -14.0 1.7
11................... Germany.................. 9,613 9,302 -3.2 1.6
12................... Brazil................... 8,972 8,388 -6.5 1.4
13................... United Kingdom........... 8,414 8,326 -1.0 1.4
14................... Pakistan................. 8,644 8,123 -6.0 1.4
15................... Hong Kong................ 7,757 8,076 4.1 1.4
16................... Kenya.................... 7,097 7,862 10.8 1.3
17................... Colombia................. 8,068 7,771 -3.7 1.3
18................... France................... 7,401 7,223 -2.4 1.2
19................... Malaysia................. 7,395 6,595 -10.8 1.1
20................... Russia................... 6,643 6,238 -6.1 1.1
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Total.............. 582,996 586,323 0.6 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International students from Asia, particularly from India, China, and Korea, represent a growing concentration
in international student enrollments in U.S. higher education.
Students from the leading four places of origin comprise 40% of all international students.
STATES WITH THE MOST INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, 2002/03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total economic
Rank State/region Total 2002/03 impact*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............. California....... 80,487 1,770,287,737
2.............. New York......... 63,773 1,517,701,997
3.............. Texas............ 45,672 794,899,274
4.............. Massachusetts.... 30,039 889,694,728
5.............. Florida.......... 27,270 593,210,485
6.............. Illinois......... 27,116 616,955,647
7.............. Pennsylvania..... 24,470 626,921,387
8.............. Michigan......... 22,873 430,803,636
9.............. Ohio............. 18,668 425,028,251
10............. New Jersy........ 13,644 322,840,177
11............. Indiana.......... 13,529 332,576,169
12............. Virginia......... 12,875 250,753,835
13............. Maryland......... 12,749 291,973,887
14............. Georgia.......... 12,267 248,059,190
15............. Washington....... 11,430 244,498,296
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tuition, fees, and living expenses paid by internation students from
personal and family sources of funds.
FIELDS OF STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, 1998/1999 to 2002/03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03
Field of study Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l Int'l % of % change
students students students students students total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business & Management.............. 102,083 103,215 106,043 114,885 114,777 19.6 -0.1
Engineering........................ 72,956 76,748 83,186 88,181 96,545 16.5 9.5
Mathematics & Computer Sciences.... 48,236 57,266 67,825 76,736 71,926 12.3 -6.3
Other*............................. 49,293 53,195 57,235 59,785 58,473 10.0 -2.2
Social Sciences.................... 40,062 41,662 42,367 44,667 45,978 7.8 2.9
Physical & Life Sciences........... 37,055 37,420 38,396 41,417 43,549 7.4 5.1
Undeclared......................... 30,970 32,799 35,779 36,048 36,395 6.2 1.0
Fine & Applied Arts................ 31,486 32,479 34,220 33,978 31,018 5.3 -8.7
Health Professions................. 20,260 21,625 22,430 24,037 28,120 4.8 17.0
Humanities......................... 16,295 16,686 16,123 18,367 19,153 3.3 4.3
Intensive English Language......... 21,030 21,015 23,011 21,237 17,620 3.0 -17.0
Education.......................... 13,261 12,885 14,053 15,709 16,004 2.7 1.9
Agriculture........................ 7,949 7,729 7,200 7,950 6,763 1.2 -14.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 490,933 514,723 547,867 582,996 586,323 100.0 0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*``Other'' mainly includes General Studies, Communications & Technologies, Law, and Multidisciplinary Studies.
INTERNATIONAL STUDENT MOBILITY WORLDWIDE
[International student market share of the leading three anglophone receiving countries: United States, United
Kingdom, Australia]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia Australia 3 country
Year U.S. total U.S. % U.K. total U.K. % total % total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997....................... 481,280 65.2 207,770 28.1 49,145 6.7 738,195
1998....................... 490,933 64.7 213,205 28.1 54,195 7.1 758,333
1999....................... 514,723 65.0 219,125 27.7 58,518 7.4 792,366
2000....................... 547,867 64.9 225,615 26.7 70,137 8.3 843,619
2001....................... 582,996 64.8 235,175 26.1 81,737 9.1 899,908
2002....................... 586,323 61.5 270,090 28.3 96,569 10.1 952,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
U.S. data--Open Doors 2003 Repoort on International Educatiional Exchange.
U.K. data--British Council.
Australia data--Global Student Mobility 2025: Analysis of Future Labour Market Trends and the Demand for Higher
Education.
International Student Total and Percentage of Higher Education Enrollment in Other Major Host Countries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher
Country Year Int'l total education % higher
enrollment education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada.................................... Year End 2003................ 61,303 1,032,167 5.9
France.................................... 2003......................... 180,000 2,220,000 8.1
Germany................................... Winter Term 2002/2003........ 227,026 1,938,811 11.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: IIE, Atlas of Student Mobility Project.
These gifted men and women--and the next generation of
international exchange students the Institute is currently
identifying--are truly the hope of the world, working to serve mankind
by conquering disease, advancing world peace, reducing poverty,
preserving the environment, and creating a more just and prosperous
global society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prize year Name Nobel Prize
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1904......... Sir William Ramsay IIE Visiting Lecturer, Chemistry.
UK to U.S., 1920s.
1912......... Elihu Root........ IIE Founder........... Peace.
1915......... Sir William L. IIE Visiting Lecturer, Physics.
Bragg. UK to U.S., 1920s.
1921......... Christian L. Lange IIE Visiting Lecturer, Peace.
Norway to U.S., 1933.
1925......... James Franck...... Emergency Committee Physics.
Scholar, Germany to
U.S., 1930s.
1929......... Thomas Mann....... Emergency Committee Literature.
Scholar, Germany to
U.S., 1930s.
1931......... Nicholas Murray IIE Founder and Peace.
Butler. Trustee, 1919-1923.
1933......... Sir Norman Angell. IIE Visiting Lecturer, Peace.
UK to U.S., 1920s-
1940s.
1937......... Lord Edgar A.R.G. IIE Visiting Lecturer, Peace.
Cecil. UK to U.S., 1920s.
1947......... Bernardo A. IIE Fellow, Argentina Medicine.
Houssay. to U.S., 1947-48.
1950......... Ralph Bunche...... IIE Trustee, 1950-1970 Peace.
1952......... Edward M. Purcell. IIE Graduate Student, Physics.
to Germany, 1933-1934.
1952......... Felix Bloch....... Emergency Committee Physics.
Scholar, 1933;
Fulbright, 1959.
1957......... Chen Ning Yang.... Fulbright Scholar, to Physics.
Brazil, Egypt,
Malaysia, 1974.
1958......... Joshua Lederberg.. Fulbright Scholar, to Medicine.
Australia, 1957.
1959......... Emilio Segre...... Fulbright Scholar, to Physics.
Italy, 1950.
1962......... James D. Watson... Fulbright Scholar, to Medicine.
Argentina, 1986.
1964......... Charles H. Townes. Fulbright Scholar, to Physics.
France and Japan,
1955.
1966......... Robert S. Mulliken Fulbright Scholar, to Chemistry.
England, 1952-54.
1967......... Hans Bethe........ Fulbright Scholar, to Physics.
UK, 1955.
1968......... Lars Onsager...... Fulbright Scholar, to Chemistry.
England, 1951-52.
1969......... Jan Tinbergen..... IIE Advisor, Norway to Economics.
Pakistan, 1965.
1969......... Max Delbruck...... Emergency Committee Medicine.
Scholar, Germany to
U.S., 1930s.
1970......... Hannes Alfven..... Fulbright Scholar, Physics.
Sweden to U.S., 1954-
55.
1970......... Paul Samuelson.... Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
Asia, 1972.
1973......... Wassily Leontief.. Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
France, 1961-62.
1973......... Henry A. Kissinger IIE Trustee, 1999..... Peace.
1976......... Milton Friedman... Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
UK, 1953-54.
1977......... Philip W. Anderson Fulbright Scholar, to Physics.
Japan, 1953-54.
1977......... Rosalyn S. Yalow.. Fulbright Scholar, to Medicine.
Portugal.
1982......... Bengt Samuelsson.. Fulbright Scholar, Medicine.
1961.
1983......... William A. Fowler. Fulbright Fellow, to Physics.
England, 1954-55.
1984......... Carlo Rubbia...... Fulbright Fellow, Physics.
Italy to U.S., 1958-
59.
1985......... Franco Modigliani. Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
Italy, 1961-62.
1986......... James M. Buchanan. Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
Italy, 1955; to UK,
1961.
1986......... Wole Soyinka...... IIE Travel Grantee, Literature.
Nigeria to U.S., 1968.
1987......... Susumu Tonegawa... Fulbright Fellow, Medicine.
Japan to U.S., 1963.
1989......... Trygve Haavelmo... Fulbright Scholar, Economics.
Norway to U.S., 1957-
58.
1991......... Simon Kuznets..... IIE Advisor, U.S. to Economics.
Ethiopia and Korea,
1971-72.
1991......... Erwin Neher....... Fulbright Fellow, Medicine.
Germany to U.S., 1966.
1993......... Douglass C. North. Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
Uruguay.
1996......... James A. Mirrlees. IIE Consultant, UK to Economics.
Pakistan, 1966-68.
1998......... Amartya Sen....... IIE Visiting Economics.
Professor,
Bangladesh, 1974-75.
2000......... Alan G. MacDiarmid Fulbright Fellow, New Chemistry.
Zealand to U.S., 1950.
2001......... Joseph Stiglitz... Fulbright Fellow, to Economics.
UK, 1969-70.
2001......... George A. Akerlof. Fulbright Scholar, to Economics.
India, 1967-68.
2002......... Masatoshi Koshiba. Fulbright Fellow, Physics.
Japan to U.S., 1953-
55.
2002......... Riccardo Giacconi. Fulbright Fellow, Physics.
Italy to U.S., 1956-
58.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Goodman, and we
thank likewise the Institute of International Education for the
amazing tables of figures and statistics that you have
submitted as a part of your testimony. They are very important
in helping us to get the facts right so that we will understand
the dimensions of the problem. We thank you very much.
Dr. Goodman. Thank you, Senator.
The Chairman. Ms. Johnson, may we have your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARLENE M. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAFSA: ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL
EDUCATORS
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have three messages for the committee today. First, in
the global age and even more in the age of global terror,
international education and exchange are integral to our
national security. Second, our immediate task is to create a
timely, transparent and predictable visa process in which
efforts are focused on those who require special screening,
rather than being wasted on repetitive and redundant reviews of
legitimate visitors. Third, our long-range challenge is to
reestablish the reputation of the United States as the
destination of choice for students who wish to pursue higher
education outside their home countries.
It is a particular honor to testify before the Committee on
Foreign Relations. This is the birthplace of our educational
exchange programs. As I come before you today, I am struck by
the sense that we are back in 1948 again. At that time we
confronted a new kind of war, the cold war, and we were just
beginning a long process of learning how to fight it. In that
year Congress had the wisdom and foresight to create the
Fulbright program, the first of several exchange programs that
have been fundamental to the ability of democratic values to
prevail in the cold war.
But today we are once again near the beginning of what
promises to be a long process of learning how to wage
effectively a new kind of war. This war, like the cold war, is
fundamentally about competing ideas, competing values, and
competing visions of society, governance, and human rights. As
was the case of the cold war, we have the resources to win this
new version of the war of ideas. One of them which is integral
to success is educational exchange.
Today, as before, this committee is called on to lead.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, under your leadership and that of
Senator Biden, two true friends of international education, I
know it is obvious that this committee is rising to that
challenge and we thank you.
We thank you also, Mr. Chairman, for your co-sponsorship in
the last Congress of Senate Resolution 7 that was based on our
policy paper, ``Toward an International Education Policy for
the United States,'' which elaborates on the importance of
international education for our national security. That report
is in the packet of information that we sent ahead.
I would also like to thank my colleague from Minnesota,
Senator Coleman, for introducing the International Student and
Scholar Access Act of 2004.
Mr. Chairman, 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. We have had much excellent testimony
already today about it. Secretary Powell has said recently,
``We have put in place too many restrictions and now we have to
start backing off.''
In the prepared statement that I have left for you, I
document the worrisome trends that we are experiencing in
international student enrollments on our campuses. The
presidents of the campuses talked about that earlier today.
This is particularly troublesome at the graduate level. These
are trends that contrast starkly with the rising international
enrollments prior to 9-11.
To reverse these trends, the beginning of wisdom is to
understand that security versus exchange is a false dichotomy.
Exchange is part of security, and it has been recognized as
such by virtually every foreign policy leader in our country
since World War II. The national security question is not how
do you balance exchange versus security. It is rather, how do
you maximize national security both by denying access to those
who seek entry into our country in order to do harm to us and
by facilitating access for those whose access to our country
serves the national interest.
Our recommendations for doing so are in your packets. They
are under the title ``Promoting Secure Borders and Open
Doors.'' * There are four things I just want to raise with you
right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Promoting Secure Borders and Open Doors,'' presented during
earlier testimony can be found on page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we need more effective policy guidance for consular
officers, and this under the law must come from the Department
of Homeland Security and the Department of State.
Second, we need specific reforms, which we enumerate, that
focus visa reviews on those who most require special attention
and to liberate consular officials and those involved in inter-
agency clearance in Washington from the time-consuming
repetitive and redundant reviews of legitimate visitors.
Third, we need specific reforms, which we enumerate, to
create timely, transparent, and predictable inter-agency
reviews.
Fourth, we need Congress to provide the resources for these
officials to do the job that Congress requires.
Mr. Chairman, we have the administration's attention and
that is really good. But the administration needs to hear from
this committee that these are priorities. It needs to be asked
for progress reports. It needs to be asked when will this be
done.
Some years ago we were the unrivaled leading destination
for international education. That is no longer the case. While
we have been seen as unwelcoming for international students
since 9-11, as others have mentioned, other countries have used
this opportunity. We must act decisively now to restore our
reputation as the destination of choice. It will take a
national effort. We have outlined our recommendations for that
in this report, which is also in your packet, ``In America's
Interest: Welcoming International Students,'' which provides a
road map.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to your questions
later.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marlene M. Johnson, Executive Director and CEO,
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify on this topic,
which is of paramount importance for success in the war on terror and
for our country's leadership role in the world.
NAFSA is the professional association of those who administer
educational exchange programs at the postsecondary level. Our 9,000
members are employed at some 3,500 institutions, principally colleges
and universities, in the United States and abroad. Our mission is to
promote and advance international education and exchange, and we
support public policies that expand international education and
exchange programs between the United States and other nations.
I have three messages for the Committee today. First, in the global
age--and even more in the age of global terror--international education
and exchange are integral to the national security of the United
States. Second, our immediate task is to create a timely, transparent,
and predictable visa process in which efforts are focused on those who
require special screening and are not wasted on repetitive and
redundant reviews of legitimate visitors. Third, our long-range
challenge is to re-establish the reputation of the United States as the
destination of choice for students who wish to pursue their higher
education outside their home countries--in business terms, to win back
the loyalty of our customers.
My testimony focuses on visa issues, which are our greatest
problem, rather than on SEVIS, where the remaining issues are largely
technical. I will only say for the record that NAFSA and DHS have
worked in very close partnership to surmount the daunting challenge of
implementing SEVIS in a crisis mode. It is a pleasure to be able to
acknowledge publicly the enormous efforts that our members have made to
bring SEVIS where it is today.
international education in an age of globalism and terrorism
It is a particular honor to testify before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, the birthplace of our educational exchange programs. As I
come before you today, I am struck by a sense that we are back in 1948
again. At that time, we confronted a new kind of war, the cold war, and
we were just beginning a long process of learning how to fight it. In
that year, Congress had the wisdom and foresight to create the
Fulbright program, the first of several exchange programs which, during
the course of the cold war, were fundamental to the ability of
democratic values to prevail in that conflict.
Today, we are once again near the beginning of what promises to be
a long process of learning how to wage effectively a new kind of war.
That war, like the cold war, is fundamentally about competing ideas,
competing values, and competing visions of society, governance, and
human rights. As was the case with the cold war, we have the resources
to win this new version of the war of ideas--and one of them, which is
integral to success, is educational exchange. Today, as before, this
Committee is called upon to lead. I know, Mr. Chairman, that under your
leadership and that of Senator Biden--two true friends of international
education--the Committee will again rise to the challenge.
Our policy paper, ``Toward an International Education Policy for
the United States,'' which we co-authored with the Alliance for
International Educational and Cultural Exchange, elaborates on the
importance of international education for our national security. It is
in your packets. You, Mr. Chairman, joined Senator John Kerry in 2001
in introducing a sense of the Senate resolution based on this paper,
for which we are very grateful. S. Con. Res. 7 was adopted by the
Senate by unanimous consent.
I would also like to take this opportunity to compliment my
colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman, for his leadership, and
specifically for introducing the International Student and Scholar
Access Act of 2004. This legislation speaks directly to the problems we
face. It was our privilege to work with Senator Coleman in drafting
that bill, and I would hope that a similar bill might be considered in
the next Congress. We would be pleased to work with you on that, Mr.
Chairman.
promoting secure borders and open doors: a national-interest-based visa
policy for students and scholars
In this context, the ability of legitimate international students
and scholars to gain access to the United States is paramount. The
beginning of wisdom on this matter is to understand that security
versus exchange is a false dichotomy. Exchange is part of security, and
has been recognized as such by virtually every foreign policy leader in
this country since World War II. The national security question is not:
How do you balance exchange versus security? It is: How do you maximize
national security, both by denying access to those who seek entry into
our country in order to harm us, and by facilitating access for those
whose access to our country serves the national interest?
I believe 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.
As Secretary Powell has said, ``We have put in place too many
restrictions, and now we have to start backing off on them.''
These controls were put in place piecemeal since 9/11, in all good
faith, to better protect our security. But in their totality, they are
now hindering international student and scholar access to the United
States to an extent that itself threatens our 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.
The trends are not good. In the academic year 2002-2003--the last
year for which definitive data are available--international student
enrollments in U.S. colleges and universities were essentially flat
compared to the previous year, after many years of steady increases.
A spot survey that we and our colleague associations conducted last
fall suggested that international student enrollments in 2003-2004 may
have begun to decline; more responding schools reported a decline in
enrollments than reported an increase.
Last February we surveyed international student applications to
U.S. colleges and universities for this fall and found that, at the
graduate level, they were down by an average of about 30 percent. This
past summer, the Council of Graduate Schools found that admissions of
international students to U.S. graduate schools were down, on the
average, 18 percent compared to the year before. It is therefore
predictable that our spot survey on international student enrollments
for this fall, the results of which will be released next month, will
be down, at least at the graduate level. Anecdotal evidence suggests
that at some schools, the magnitude of the decline could be rather
alarming.
More than a year ago, NAFSA issued recommendations for fixing this
problem in a way that would not compromise security--indeed, we believe
they would enhance security. We updated and re-issued our
recommendations last April. Subsequently, we joined 33 colleague
associations, principally scientific associations, in making similar
recommendations.
NAFSA's recommendations, ``Promoting Secure Borders and Open
Doors,'' are in your packets. If you look at the bullets on the second
page, you will see that we think four things need to be done.
First, State and DHS, who now share responsibility in this area,
must get together on effective policy guidance for consular officials
who make the day-to-day decisions. No such comprehensive visa policy
guidance has been issued since 9/1l. In a policy vacuum, every control
looks like a good one--and therein lies the source of the problem.
Second, we must focus our efforts more effectively on those who
require special screening. Today, far too many scarce human resources
are wasted on routine reviews of low-risk visa applications. This
particularly affects scientists, and people from Arab and Muslim
countries; both of these populations are subjected indiscriminately to
special reviews. Repetitive, redundant reviews, particularly of well
known people, clog the system, frustrate applicants, and detract from
our ability to focus our attention where it is really needed.
Third, for those tens of thousands of visa applications--vastly
more than before 9/11--that are sent to Washington for special security
reviews, the process lacks appropriate time guidelines and
transparency. Lately, the State Department has been making progress on
speeding up clearances for scientists--the so-called ``MANTIS''
clearances. I remain concerned, however, about the so-called ``CONDOR''
clearances that Arab and Muslim males must go through. This process is
very opaque; we have no good data on the CONDOR process. But our
friends in the region tell us constantly of their extreme concern that
we are cutting off access to an American education for a whole
generation of future Middle Eastern leadership. Few things could be
more short-sighted.
Fourth, Congress must provide greater resources for the State
Department to provide the increased scrutiny of visa applications that
Congress demands.
Mr. Chairman, we have gotten the administration's attention. Almost
all of our recommendations are under consideration or being worked on
at some level in our government. But the government moves slowly and
with difficulty. It needs to hear from the Committee that these are
priorities. It needs to be asked for progress reports. It needs to be
asked, ``When will this be done?'' I urge the Committee to let the
administration know it's interested. It will make a huge difference.
in america's interest: welcoming international students
Mr. Chairman, some years ago, the United States was unrivalled as
the leading destination for international students. That is no longer
the case. The last three years, in particular, have been tough on our
image. I say that not to debate or complain about policy, but simply to
state a fact that we have to deal with. Other countries, meanwhile,
which were already implementing proactive international student
recruitment strategies before 9/Il in an overt challenge to our
leadership in international education, have had a field day recruiting
since 9/11.
International student enrollments at universities in the UK
increased 23 percent from 2002 to 2003. The British Council, which
promotes British higher education abroad, predicts that the UK could
triple its international student enrollments by 2020.
The number of international students at Canadian universities
increased by more than 15 percent from 2002 to 2003. The number at
Australian universities increased by more than 10 percent from 2003 to
this year.
In addition, as you may know, under the Bologna Declaration, all EC
university students now have seamless access to higher education
anywhere in the community. To make this work, the common language of
instruction tends to be English. You can now study for a university
degree in English in virtually any country in Europe--an unthinkable
concept just a few years ago. This creates yet another center of
competition--and an increasingly vigorous one--for the English-speaking
international student market.
All of that is fine. I'm delighted that international students are
finding their way to high quality educations in these countries. But we
need to be in the race. We, too, can attract international students to
our country in significantly higher numbers. But to do that, we need to
act decisively to restore our reputation as the destination of choice
for international students. We have to win back the loyalty of our
customers. It will take a national strategy to do this, and government,
higher education, and the private sector will all have to do their
part.
We set forth such a long-term national strategy in the report of
our task force on international student access, whose honorary chair
was former Secretary of Defense William Perry. The report, entitled
``In America's Interest: Welcoming International Students,'' is in your
packets. Time does not permit me to go into that, but I urge you to
read the report, Mr. Chairman, and to consider holding a hearing in the
next Congress on a long-term strategy to attract international
students.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to responding to questions.
______
Toward an International Education Policy for the United States:
International Education in an Age of globalism and Terrorism
OVERVIEW
In the decades following World War II, visionary leaders understood
that the challenges of the cold war required that Americans be
knowledgeable about the world and that future world leaders have
opportunities for a U.S. education and for exposure to American values.
International education and exchange programs were created to serve
these dual objectives.
On September 11, 2001, the challenges of global terrorism replaced
those of the cold war as the central organizing concept of American
foreign policy. An international threat of which Americans were largely
ignorant proved capable on that day of doing more serious damage to the
homeland than any foreign power had managed to inflict since the War of
1812. Nothing could have awakened us more dramatically to the
continuing necessity of international knowledge and understanding.
September 11 sealed the case; on that date, international education
became, beyond question, a national security imperative. It is now
clearer than ever that the end of the cold war did not mean an end to
international, civil, and ethnic conflict. The defense of U.S.
interests and the effective management of global unrest in the twenty-
first century will require more, not less, ability on the part of
Americans to understand the world in terms other than their own. Yet
today, the nation's commitment to international education is in doubt.
These post-September 11 security concerns, despite their gravity
and immediacy, should not cause us to forget the other enduring factors
that make international education a necessity. Globalization is
obliterating the distinction between foreign and domestic concerns.
Most domestic problems in today's world are also international. The
global economic and technology revolutions are redefining the nation's
economic security and reshaping business, life, and work. The opening
of global markets, the explosion of trade, the globalizing effects of
Internet technology, and the need for U.S. businesses to compete in
countries around the world require much more global content in all U.S.
education.
The world is coming to us, whether we like it or not--and was doing
so in fundamental ways even before foreign terrorists attacked us on
September 11. Immigrants are changing the face of American society.
Foreign-born experts pace America's scientific leadership; indeed, U.S.
scientific leadership rests so much on international expertise that the
U.S. research community is now deeply worried about the effects of
post-September 11 immigration controls on scientific exchange. The
American workforce is now multicultural, and customers for American
products are found everywhere the Internet goes.
These realities help fuel U.S. development--but they also create
new needs, both for managers who can think globally and for tolerance
and cross-cultural sensitivity in our neighborhoods and workplaces.
In short, international and cross-cultural awareness and
understanding on the part of U.S. citizens will be crucial to effective
U.S. leadership, competitiveness, prosperity, and national security in
this century. Yet--all the laws on the books notwithstanding--the
United States effectively lacks a coherent, clearly articulated,
proactive policy for imparting effective global literacy to our people
as an integral part of their education and for reaching out to future
foreign leaders through education and exchange.
This situation, problematic before September 11, now constitutes a
clear and present danger. We no longer have the option of getting along
without the expertise that we need to understand and conduct our
relations with the world. We do not have the option of not knowing our
enemies--of understanding the world where terrorism originates and
speaking its languages. We do not have the option of not knowing our
friends--of understanding how to forge and sustain international
relationships that will enhance U.S. leadership and help our values
prevail. We do not have the option of not increasing--dramatically--the
ability of the world's citizens to understand America, and of Americans
to understand the world, through exchange relationships.
What is needed is a policy that promotes the internationalization
of learning in the broadest sense, including supporting the learning of
foreign languages and knowledge of other cultures by Americans,
promoting study abroad by U.S. students, encouraging students from
other countries to study in the United States, facilitating the
exchange of scholars and of citizens at all levels of society, and
enhancing the educational infrastructure through which we produce
international competence and research.
We issue this updated policy statement in an effort to renew the
momentum created when the statement was first released in November
1999. The Clinton administration made a start with its April 19, 2000,
Executive Memorandum instructing federal agencies to take certain steps
to promote and facilitate international education--the first such
memorandum ever. Presidents Clinton and Bush have both proclaimed
International Education Week in November of every year since 2000. In
2001, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 7,
expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should
establish an international education policy. Now is the time to take
the effort to the next level. We call upon the administration to renew
and strengthen the U.S. commitment to international education.
ELEMENTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY
An international education policy that effectively promotes U.S.
interests in the twenty-first century should do the following:
Bolster International, Foreign Language, and Area Expertise
Globalization and the war on terror expand the nation's need for
international competence. To maintain U.S. security, well being, and
global economic leadership, we need to increase the depth and variety
of international expertise of Americans in government, business,
education, the media, and other fields. Although the Internet
dramatically increases opportunities for global collaboration,
technology alone cannot substitute for the expertise developed through
serious study and substantive international experience.
As the streamers across the bottom of our television screens in the
days following the terrorist attacks--asking speakers of Arabic, Farsi
and Pashto to come forward--dramatically demonstrated, American foreign
language skills are in critically short supply. They will remain so
until we take bold steps to enhance the infrastructure for teaching
foreign languages at all levels of education. The U.S. government alone
requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills, and American
business increasingly needs internationally and multi-culturally
experienced employees to compete in a global economy and to manage a
culturally diverse workforce.
An international education policy should:
Set an objective that international education become an
integral component of U.S. undergraduate education, with every
college graduate achieving proficiency in a foreign language
and attaining a basic understanding of at least one world area
by 2015. New technologies should be employed creatively to help
achieve this objective.
Promote cultural and foreign language study in primary and
secondary education so that entering college students will have
increased proficiency in these areas.
Through graduate and professional training and research,
enhance the nation's capacity to produce the international,
regional, international business, and foreign-language
expertise necessary for U.S. global leadership and security.
Encourage international institutional partnerships that will
facilitate internationalized curricula, collaborative research,
and faculty and student mobility.
Welcome International Students
The millions of people who have studied in the United States over
the years constitute a remarkable reservoir of goodwill for our
country, perhaps our most underrated foreign policy asset. To educate
international students is to have an opportunity to shape the future
leaders who will guide the political and economic development of their
countries. Such students gain an in-depth exposure to American values
and to our successful multicultural democracy, and they take those
values back home to support democracy and market economies.
International students contribute significantly to national, state, and
local economies and to the financial health of their schools: The
583,000 who studied in the United States at the postsecondary level in
the academic year 2001-2002, along with their dependents, spent nearly
$12 billion on tuition, fees, and living expenses, making international
education the fifth-largest U.S. service sector export.
This resource is now at risk. For a generation, the United States
could take for granted its position as the destination of choice for
international students. This is no longer the case, because the United
States has failed to recognize and respond to the increasing
competitiveness of the international student market. For lack of a
proactive policy for attracting such students and facilitating their
access to this country, the United States risks losing its market
dominance to the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and
other countries that have launched aggressive recruitment strategies.
Indeed, the U.S. share of the international student market fell nearly
ten percentage points from 1982 to 1995, the last year for which data
are available. If current practices continue, a further significant
decline is inevitable.
The situation has become dire since September 11. The institution
of harmful measures--including an unpredictable visa process
characterized by increasing delays and denials, an unreliable student
monitoring system still unable to perform effectively, and high-profile
detentions of international students and exchange visitors--seriously
threatens the attractiveness and accessibility of U.S. higher education
for international students. These policies are disproportionately
impacting students from those countries with which stronger ties of
international understanding are most needed--the Arab and Muslim world.
The long-term effects on U.S. national security of severing our
exchange relationships with this part of the world and shutting down
access for Arab and Muslim students will be profound.
An international education policy should:
Outline a comprehensive strategy to enhance the ability of
legitimate international students to pursue higher education
opportunities in the United States
Ensure that the United States attracts and provides
opportunities for students from strategically important regions
of the world to study in the United States, including those
from predominantly Muslim and Arab countries.
Facilitate entry into the United States for bona fide short-
term and degree students, treat those who observe the terms of
their visas as valued visitors while they are here, and adopt
training and employment policies and regulations that enable
students to maximize their exposure to American society and
culture through internships and employment.
Promote the study of English by international students in
the United States, and promote the United States as the best
provider of English training services and materials.
Encourage Study Abroad
The good news is that the number of U.S. students studying abroad
for credit doubled in the past decade, to more than 150,000 in 2000-
2001, according to the Institute of International Education. The bad
news is that this number represents about one percent of enrollment.
Clearly, most college students still do not study abroad, and many lack
access to study abroad programs through their institutions.
This situation is no longer acceptable at a time when it is more
important than ever for Americans to understand the world in which they
live. We must not only increase vastly the numbers of U.S. students
studying abroad, but also to increase the proportion studying in non-
European areas of growing importance to U.S. interests, in academic and
professional fields outside the liberal arts, and in languages other
than English. We must also enhance the study abroad experience by
incorporating out-of-the-classroom experiences that bring students into
closer and broader contact with host-country people and culture.
If American students are to be able to function effectively in the
world into which they will graduate, it must become the routine--not
the exception--for them to study abroad in high quality programs. For
that to happen, the United States requires a policy to promote global
learning, which recognizes that providing Americans with opportunities
to acquire the skills, attitudes, and perceptions that allow them to be
globally and cross-culturally competent is central to U.S. security and
economic interests in the twenty-first century.
An international education policy should:
Set an objective that 20 percent of American students
receiving college degrees will have studied abroad for credit
by 2010, and 50 percent by 2040.
Promote ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender diversity in study
abroad.
Promote the diversification of the study abroad experience,
including: increased study in nontraditional locations outside
the United Kingdom and Western Europe; increased study of major
world languages--such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese,
and Russian--that are less commonly learned by Americans; and
increased study abroad in underrepresented subjects such as
mathematical and physical sciences and business.
Promote the integration of study abroad into the higher-
education curriculum, and increase opportunities for
international internships and service learning.
Strengthen Citizen and Scholarly Exchange Program
The United States benefits from a great wealth of exchange
programs, some federally funded but many more funded privately. They
operate at all levels, from high school to higher education to the
business and professional realms. Armies of American volunteers make
these programs possible, hosting visitors in their homes and serving as
resources and guides to their communities. Exchange programs uniquely
engage our citizenry in the pursuit of our country's global interests,
and offer opportunities for substantive interaction in the broadest
possible range of fields.
These exchanges also offer unparalleled opportunities for
intercultural learning. Many of today's world leaders first experienced
America and its values through exchange programs. But these valuable
programs are hemmed in by diminished policy priority and by a federal
regulatory regime that has lacked consistency and predictability. In
addition, exchange program participants have suffered from the same
visa and monitoring problems as have foreign students.
An international education policy should:
Invigorate federal programs and reform regulations governing
private efforts in order to dramatically strengthen citizen,
professional, and other exchanges that bring future leaders
from around the world to the United States for substantive
exposure to our society, and that give future American leaders
opportunities for similar experiences overseas.
Promote the international exchange of scholars in order to
enhance the global literacy of U.S. scholars, ensure that the
United States builds relationships with the best scholarly
talent from abroad, and improve the international content of
American curricula.
Ensure that exchanges with strategically important regions
of the world--such as predominantly Arab and Muslim nations--
receive adequate priority.
Mobilize the Resources
The federal government cannot do it all. Colleges, universities,
and community colleges must further internationalize their curricula
and campuses, and must provide enhanced global opportunities for
students and faculty. Higher education institutions, state governments,
private foundations, nongovernmental organizations, and the business
community (which will be the primary beneficiary of a globally literate
workforce) all need to accept their responsibilities, increase their
support for international education, and forge creative partnerships to
achieve these important national goals. But the federal role is crucial
in setting a policy direction, creating a conceptual understanding
within which members of the public can define their roles, and using
federal resources to leverage action at other levels.
An international education policy should:
Clearly articulate the national interest in international
education and set a strong policy direction to which citizens
can relate their own efforts.
Dedicate federal resources that are appropriate for the
national interests served.
Stimulate involvement by, and leverage funding from, the
states and the higher education, business, and charitable
communities.
A CALL TO ACTION
To be an educated citizen today is to be able to see the world
through others' eyes and to understand the international dimensions of
the problems we confront as a nation--skills that are enhanced by
international experience. The programs we put in place today to make
international experience integral to higher education will determine if
our society will have a globally literate citizenry prepared to respond
to the demands of the twenty-first century and an age of global
terrorism.
We call on the President to:
Announce the international education policy in a major
address, decision memorandum, or message to Congress, and
propose appropriate funding.
Appoint a senior White House official who will be in charge
of the policy and responsible for meeting its targets.
Convene a White House summit of college and university
presidents, other academic leaders, international education
professionals, and NGO and business leaders to map out the
specifics of the policy.
Assign specific roles to appropriate federal agencies.
Create an interagency working group of these agencies,
chaired by the senior White House official, to ensure that
policies and regulations affecting international education are
consistent and coherent.
Create an advisory commission consisting of business
leaders, state-level officials, and international education
professionals from institutions of higher education, exchange
programs, foundations, and appropriate professional
associations to offer advice and guidance on program
implementation.
______
In America's Interest: Welcoming International Students--Report of the
Strategic Task Force on International Student Access
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At a time when efforts to counter the global threat of terrorism
have highlighted the importance of building ties and friendships around
the world, the United States needs a comprehensive strategy to enhance
the ability of legitimate international students to pursue educational
opportunities here. Such is the conclusion of a task force established
by NAFSA: Association of International Educators to examine the issue
of international student access to higher education in the United
States.
In its report, ``In America's Interest: Welcoming International
Students,'' the Strategic Task Force on International Student Access
identifies the major barriers to the ability of prospective
international students to access U.S. higher education, and sets forth
a strategic plan to address each of them.
The Continuing Importance of International Students
The task force report affirms that openness to international
students serves long-standing and important U.S. foreign policy,
educational, and economic interests. The terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, presented new challenges for screening visa applicants more
carefully to keep out those who wish us harm. At the same time, the
terrorist threat also highlights the importance of building friends and
allies across the world to better counter such global threats. The task
force report therefore restates the case for encouraging and enabling
legitimate international students to study in the United States. The
task force believes strongly that international education is part of
the solution to terrorism, not part of the problem.
Barriers to International Student Access
The U.S. position as the leading destination for international
students has been eroding for years in the absence of a comprehensive
national strategy for promoting international student access to U.S.
higher education. In this strategic vacuum, four barriers, which impede
access, remain unaddressed. The principal barriers are (1) the failure
of the relevant U.S. government agencies to make international student
recruitment a priority and to coordinate their recruitment efforts, and
(2) burdensome U.S. government visa and student-tracking regulations.
Lesser barriers are (3) the cost of U.S. higher education, and (4) the
complexity of the U.S. higher education system.
A Strategic Approach to Promoting International Student Access
The task force recommends that the U.S. government, in consultation
with the higher education community and other concerned constituencies,
develop a strategic plan for promoting U.S. higher education to
international students, based on a national policy that articulates why
international student access is important to the national interest. In
the context of such a strategic plan, the task force makes the
following recommendations for addressing each of the four barriers to
international student access cited above.
A Comprehensive Recruitment Strategy
A recruitment strategy must be developed that specifies the roles
of the three federal agencies that share responsibility for
international student recruitment--the Departments of State, Commerce,
and Education--and provides for coordination of their efforts. Such a
strategy must rationalize and create an effective mandate for the State
Department's overseas educational advising centers, resolve issues of
responsibility and coordination in the Commerce Department, and provide
a clear mandate for the Department of Education.
Removing Excessive Governmentally Imposed Barriers
Three broad actions are required to remove governmentally imposed
barriers that unnecessarily impede international student access to U.S.
higher education. First, immigration laws affecting international
students must be updated to reflect twenty-first century realities,
particularly by replacing the unworkable ``intending immigrant'' test
set forth in section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act with
a standard that focuses on whether or not the applicant is a legitimate
student. Second, a visa-screening system is needed which permits
necessary scrutiny of visa applicants leading to decisions within
reasonable and predictable periods of time. Third, the administration
must strive to implement the congressionally-mandated student
monitoring system in a way that maintains the attractiveness of the
United States as a destination for international students without
sacrificing national security.
Addressing Issues of Cost
Issues of cost must be addressed through innovative and expanded
loan, tuition exchange, and scholarship programs for international
students. Scholarship assistance, through the Agency for International
Development, should be directed at countries or regions--such as
Africa--where the United States has a strong foreign policy interest in
providing higher education opportunities but where the cost of a U.S.
higher education is an insurmountable barrier. A financial aid
information clearinghouse should be developed to help international
students understand the options available to them.
Addressing Complexity With a Marketing Plan
A marketing plan should be developed that sends a clear, consistent
message about U.S. higher education and that transforms the complexity
of the U.S. higher education system from a liability to an asset. A
user-friendly, comprehensive, sophisticated, Web-based information
resource is needed, through which international students will be able
to understand the multiple higher education options available to them
in the United States.
Conclusion
Rather than retreating from our support for international student
exchange--and forgoing its contribution to our national strength and
well being--we must redouble our efforts to provide foreign student
access to U.S. higher education while maintaining security. The task
force calls on the U.S. government, academe, the business community,
and all who care about our nation's future to step up to the task of
ensuring that we continue to renew the priceless resource of
international educational exchange.
INTRODUCTION: THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11
The increased awareness of international issues to which the
secretary-general referred in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
has placed special emphasis on the work of this task force, which was
formed before September 11, 2001. Our mandate is to identify barriers
to international student access to U.S. higher education and to
recommend measures to address those barriers.
For at least the second half of the twentieth century, it was an
unquestioned verity of U.S. foreign policy that programs to promote
international understanding advanced the national interest. It was
almost universally accepted that educating successive generations of
world leaders in the United States constituted an indispensable
investment in America's international leadership.
After September 11, 2001, these assumptions are being questioned to
an unprecedented degree. Those who have recently argued against
international exchange programs seem to see today's United States of
America as a country so vulnerable in the face of the terrorist threat
that it has no option but to close its borders. They have portrayed the
U.S. consular officer corps as an inadequately trained group that
unselectively hands out visas as a way to curry favor with foreign
governments. From their perspective, programs that have for generations
educated the people who now lead many countries of the world are
suddenly nothing more than avenues for fraudulent entry into the United
States. Their views, asserted persistently since September 11, seek to
persuade Americans to lead from their insecurities and fears, rather
than from their strengths and hopes. This is not the America we see.
Nor, in our opinion, is it the nation that most Americans know.
Without question, September 11 was a wake-up call that changed many
of the security imperatives of our country. Like all Americans, we and
our colleagues in higher education mourn the thousands of lives lost on
that terrible day, grieve for their families, and are determined that
it shall not happen again. But in our horror of those tragic events, it
is important not to draw self-defeating lessons. The United States had
a strategic need to act to enhance international student access to U.S.
higher education before September 11. The need is only stronger now.
We cannot know what the future holds, but we do know one thing:
There will be other crises. When the next generation's crises occur,
and the United States needs friends and allies to confront them, we
will look to the world leaders of that time who are being educated in
our country today. If we act out of fear and insecurity, rather than
confidence and strength, we risk making the future worse, not better,
for our country and our world.
Continued--indeed, enhanced--U.S. openness to international
students is integral to America's security in today's world.
International student exchanges are part of the solution to terrorism,
not part of the problem. In the pages that follow, we propose bold
initiatives to increase international student access to U.S. higher
education. We commend our recommendations to all who are not content to
lead from fear, and who dare to hope for a better, more secure future.
THE CONTINUING CALL FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENT EXCHANGE
Forward-looking leaders have called time and again for continued
international educational exchange as an important part of a strong
response to terrorism. Nine weeks after September 11, 2001, President
George W. Bush said:
. . . We must also reaffirm our commitment to promote
educational opportunities that enable American students to
study abroad, and to encourage international students to take
part in our educational system. By studying foreign cultures
and languages and living abroad, we gain a better understanding
of the many similarities that we share, and learn to respect
our differences. The relationships that are formed between
individuals from different countries, as part of international
education programs and exchanges, can also foster goodwill that
develops into vibrant, mutually beneficial partnerships among
nations.
America's leadership and national security rest on our
commitment to educate and prepare our youth for active
engagement in the international community. . . .''
On February 27, 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed
the State Department's support for foreign students:
The Department's policy on student visas is based on the
democratic values of an open society and the perception that
foreign students make an important contribution to our nation's
intellectual and academic climate, as well as to our nation's
economy. We must continue to nurture these vital relationships
even as we improve the security of our borders.
. . . American values, including democracy, economic freedom,
and individual rights, draw students from many nations. As
these students and scholars from other countries gain from our
society and academic institutions, they also serve as resources
for our campuses and communities, helping our citizens to
develop the international understanding needed to strengthen
our long-term national security and enhance our economic
competitiveness. The professional partnerships and lifelong
friendships that are created through international education
are important for a secure, prosperous future, not only for our
own country but also for the world as a whole.
The New York Times, in a September 24, 2002, editorial, suggested
that our efforts to spread our influence and understanding of our
culture should be stepped up, not abandoned. Cautioning that government
policies must not impede legitimate exchange, the editorial said,
``Higher education is one of the best methods we have of spreading the
word about who we are and of exposing our citizens to non-Americans.
Bringing foreign students onto our campuses is among the best favors we
can do ourselves.''
This task force enthusiastically agrees that we must engage this
world without walls, this indivisible humanity. We must learn to
understand our similarities and respect our differences. We must
continue to nurture our greatest foreign policy asset: the friendship
of those who know our country because we have welcomed them as
students. That is the counsel of strength and hope, which we believe
Americans, with their innate common sense, understand intuitively.
BENEFITS THAT FAR OUTWEIGH THE RISKS
Why do we care if international students choose U.S. colleges and
universities to pursue their education and to improve their English
language skills? The case has been articulated many times, but
September 11 made us forget it. It is, therefore, worth restating the
ways in which openness to international students continues to serve the
fundamental interests of U.S. foreign policy, our economy, and our
educational system--even more so in an age of global terrorism.
Foreign Policy Benefits
Secretary Powell has spoken eloquently of the foreign policy
benefits that accrue to the United States from being the destination of
choice for the world's internationally mobile students and, especially,
from educating successive generations of world leaders. By hosting
international students, we generate an appreciation of American
political values and institutions, and we lay the foundation for
constructive relations based on mutual understanding and goodwill. The
ties formed at school between future American and future foreign
leaders have facilitated innumerable foreign policy relationships. The
millions of people who have studied in the United States over the years
constitute a remarkable reservoir of goodwill for our country perhaps
our most undervalued foreign policy asset.
Is there a danger that terrorists will gain access to the United
States by posing as students? Of course there is; that danger exists
with respect to all nonimmigrant visitors, of which students constitute
only a minuscule two percent. All countries must confront a central
question of our age, which is how to reconcile global mobility with
global terrorism. Openness to mobility carries dangers; higher
education wants to be a part of the greater attention to these dangers
that is now necessary, and of the more robust enforcement measures that
are now required.
In this context, the task force fully supports appropriate
screening and monitoring measures. Schools are collectively spending
millions of dollars and countless hours to implement the international
student tracking system that became a federal priority on September 11.
They are working with the Department of State to protect the integrity
of student visas and to prevent their fraudulent use by those who seek
access to the United States for illegitimate reasons. Research
institutions are wrestling with questions of access to sensitive
scientific information and are doing their best to strike the
appropriate balance. In these and other ways, higher education is doing
its part to help protect our country.
But to unduly restrict the access of future leaders--and, indeed,
the youth of the world--to this country is to court a greater danger,
which is to nurture the isolationism, fundamentalism. and bigoted
caricatures that drive anti-Western terrorism. After September 11, it
seems clear that the more people who can experience this country first-
hand, breaking down the stereotypes they grow up with and opening their
minds to a world beyond their borders, the better it is for U.S.
security.
Economic Benefits
International students are good for the U.S. economy, as well.
This, while not in the task force's judgment the most important reason
for reaching out to such students, is nevertheless the basic driving
force leading competitor countries to adopt proactive strategies for
attracting them. NAFSA estimates that international students and their
dependents spent nearly $12 billion in the U.S. economy in the last
academic year, which makes international education a significant U.S.
service-sector export. This economic benefit is shared by schools,
communities, states, and the U.S. economy as a whole. According to the
Institute of International Education, more than 70 percent of
undergraduate international students pay full tuition and receive no
financial aid, thus allowing schools to offer more financial assistance
to American students. In addition, U.S.-educated students take home
preferences for American products, and business students in particular
take home an education in U.S. business practices.
Educational Benefits
International students enrich American higher education and
culture. For many American students, college or university life
provides their first dose and extensive contacts with foreigners. These
contacts begin the process of preparing these students to be effective
global citizens. Foreign graduate students make important contributions
to teaching and research, particularly in the scientific fields, and
their enrollment in under-enrolled science courses often makes the
difference for a school's ability to offer those courses. Indeed,
graduate education as we know it could not function without
international students.
Immigration opponents argue that international students compete
with Americans for slots in the U.S. higher education system and the
U.S. economy, as though international education were a zero-sum game
and any slot a foreigner gets is one an American does not get. The task
force is unaware of anything but anecdotal evidence to support the
thesis that international students take spots in universities that
Americans would otherwise occupy. There is, however, ample evidence for
a contrary proposition: International student enrollments and
international teaching assistants enable universities to offer classes
to American students that would not otherwise be available.
On the job front, it is worth remembering that laws and regulations
provide for visitors to adjust their status to remain in the United
States and work precisely so that people with needed skills can work in
the U.S. economy. The fact is that, although most students return home
and contribute to their countries after studying in the United States,
some remain legally in the United States and contribute to the U.S.
economy. And increasingly, in this age of global mobility, some do
both--effectively becoming citizens of two countries, moving back and
forth, and contributing to both. In any of those cases, they contribute
to long-term U.S. interests.
As former Secretary of Defense William Perry noted in an address to
the 1998 USIA-ETS conference, ``Attracting foreign students to study in
the U.S. is a win-win-win situation: it's a win for our economy; it's a
win for our foreign policy; and it's a win for our educational
programs''--and all the more so since September 11. Without question,
September 11 gave us a new appreciation of the importance of
identifying and screening out international visitors of any kind--
students or otherwise--who would do us harm. We consider it equally
without question, however, that openness to international students is
overwhelmingly a net asset for the United States.
THREATS TO U.S. LEADERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
Thanks in part to the broad support it continues to receive,
educational exchange to the United States is still going strong. The
Institute of International Education reports that the number of
international students in U.S. higher education institutions has
increased in most years since 1955. According to IIE's Open Doors 2002,
the authoritative source of data on international student enrollment
for academic year 2001-2002, ``This year's 6.4 percent increase in
international student enrollment in U.S. colleges and universities
equals last year's increase, which was the largest increase in the past
20 years. This continues a trend of substantial growth in foreign
student enrollments that began in 1997, after a four-year period of
minimal growth.''
What's wrong with this picture? At first glance, nothing. But
although the absolute numbers are increasing, U.S. market share is
going in the opposite direction. According to IIE, the U.S. share of
internationally mobile students--the proportion of all international
students who select the United States for study--declined by almost ten
percent from 1982 to 1995, the last year that IIE did the calculation
(39.2 to 30.2 percent).
In itself, that is not an alarming statistic. U.S. market share is
still healthy, and the argument could be made that our nearly 40
percent market share was unsustainable. It is what lies behind that
statistic that is alarming.
Declining U.S. market share is not simply a function of the free
market. It is due to at least two factors. First, it reflects
aggressive recruitment efforts by our competitors--the United Kingdom,
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and others--who have determined that
they want to reap more of the foreign policy, economic, and educational
benefits that international students bring. Conversely, it reflects the
absence of such a conclusion on the part of the United States, which
apparently assumes that international students will always come because
they always have. In sum, the international student market has become
highly competitive, but the market leader is not competing. Such
complacency risks the loss of our country's leadership in international
education, with the accompanying negative ramifications for our
security, foreign policy, and economy.
Second, declining U.S. market share does not appear to reflect any
decline in international demand for U.S. higher education. Demand is
strong; people still want to study here. The problem is access: How
does one get here? How does one understand where one fits in the
uniquely complex U.S. higher education system, finance the high cost of
a U.S. education, and--above all--surmount the formidable,
governmentally imposed barriers to studying here? While competing
nations seek to remove disincentives to study in their countries, U.S.
policy ignores--and sometimes exacerbates--the disincentives to study
here. The problem lies not in the internationally popular product, nor
in the highly motivated customer, but rather in market imperfections
that keep the two from finding each other. Those imperfections are all
subject to our control or influence. If we ignore them, we will
continue to lose out in the competition.
Ultimately, what's wrong with this picture is the absence of a
strategy to sustain the numbers. For a generation after World War II,
the United States had a strategy of promoting international student
exchange as a means of waging the Cold War and promoting international
peace. But now more than ever, the U.S. government seems to lack
overall strategic sense of why exchange is important--and, therefore,
of what U.S. interests are at risk by not continuing to foster
exchanges. In this strategic vacuum, it is difficult to counter the
day-to-day obstacles that students encounter in trying to come here--
and that schools encounter in trying to recruit them.
In addressing the need for a comprehensive national initiative to
promote international student access to U.S. higher education,
therefore, it is as important to understand what the problem is not as
it is to understand what the problem is. At the most basic--and
encouraging--level, the problem is not one of weakness. The United
States has every resource it needs to be successful in attracting
international students--and, indeed, has been successful at it.
The United States has more higher education capacity than our major
competitors combined, the high quality of U.S. higher education is
universally recognized, and the United States is a magnet for many
throughout the world. The problem is not how to make the United States
and its higher education system more attractive, but how to make them
more accessible.
Many colleges and universities are already sophisticated in
actively recruiting undergraduate international students, either
individually or through consortia. U.S. higher education is highly
entrepreneurial and market driven. The problem is not a lack of
competitiveness; but how to harness higher education's competitive
energies into a national strategy.
At the level of the federal government, the Departments of State,
Commerce, and Education all have programs that relate to attracting
international students. These programs are uncoordinated and seemingly
operate in complete isolation from one another. For example, the
Commerce Department's ``Study USA'' program and the State Department's
``Education USA'' program have nothing to do with each other. Although
more resources are needed, it is not clear that more resources for
current programs, absent a coordinated strategy, would make a
difference. The problem is not the absence of resources, programs, and
dedicated civil servants, but a lack of policy, strategy, and
coordination.
BARRIERS TO INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ACCESS
The task force has identified four barriers to international
student access to U.S. higher education. We believe a strategic plan is
needed to address them. The principal barriers to access, on which we
focus most of this report, are: (1) the absence of a proactive,
coordinated effort to recruit international students; and (2)
burdensome U.S. government regulations, which often effectively cancel
out recruitment efforts. Lesser barriers are (3) the cost of U.S.
higher education, and (4) the complexity of our higher education
system. To effectively address each of these barriers, the task force
recommends that the United States articulate and develop a strategic
plan to increase access.
The Need for a Proactive Access Strategy as Part of an International
Education Policy for the United States
The U.S. government has not yet made it a strategic objective to
increase international student access to the United States and,
consequently, lacks a strategic plan for doing so. The time has passed
when the United States could idly assume that it will continue to
attract the world's best and brightest without such a plan. As
articulated earlier in this report, our nation's foreign policy,
economic, and educational interests require such a strategy now more
than ever before.
NAFSA, along with numerous other higher education and exchange
organizations, has articulated the need for an international access
strategy before, as part of a more comprehensive national policy that
promotes international education in the broadest sense. In the past two
years, a national policy on international education, originally put
forth by NAFSA and its colleague association, the Alliance for
International Educational and Cultural Exchange, has received strong
bipartisan public support. In 2000, the Clinton administration issued a
memorandum to federal agencies instructing them to take certain steps
to promote and facilitate international education, and Congress has
introduced and passed bipartisan resolutions to create a national
policy on international education. The task force strongly supports the
continuation of these efforts, and in particular, it urges the U.S.
government to articulate the need for a national strategy to facilitate
access to U.S. higher education and to develop a plan to implement that
strategy.
The presence of such an access strategy would provide the policy
basis for addressing the following four barriers to international
student access.
Uncoordinated Recruitment Efforts
One consequence of the absence of strategy is uncoordinated
recruitment efforts on the part of both the U.S. government and higher
education. At the government level, there is no lead agency, there is
no interagency coordination, and there is no coordination within
agencies to ensure that one bureau does not work at cross-purposes with
another. At the level of colleges and universities, some are more
active--and some more successful--than others in recruiting
international students; but, with rare exceptions at the state level,
schools do not enter into strategic partnerships for the purpose of
increasing recruitment overall.
Burdensome U.S. Government Regulations
Another consequence of the absence of strategy is unnecessarily
burdensome government regulations that restrict international student
access to the United States.
Uninformed rhetoric since the September 11 tragedy has fostered the
impression that student visas are handed out to all corners. The
reality is quite different. Student visas are not--and never have
been--easy to get. The student visa denial rate was 28 percent in
fiscal year 2001; in countries where consular officers suspect that the
desire to emigrate to the United States is prevalent, it is
significantly higher.
Although data are not yet available, a post-September 11 sea change
appears to be occurring in visa processing for male Muslim applicants
and for applicants who intend to pursue a science major. Many such
applicants were unable to enroll for the fall 2002 semester because
their visa applications were sent to Washington where they sat for
months, without being decided, until the program start date had passed.
This denial through delayed decision making is devastating our
exchanges with the Muslim world--at the same time that Congress creates
highly touted new Muslim exchange programs. Here is the absence of
strategy: foreign policy going in one direction and visa policy in
another, with the former pursuing forward-looking public diplomacy
objectives while the latter makes the implementation of those
objectives impossible.
It is at the level of visa policy where the primary strategy needs
to be directed. Operationally, there are no exchange programs if the
participants cannot get visas. Nothing could be more shortsighted than
to deny exchange opportunities to people from countries where isolation
from the rest of the world is driving terrorism. This will only
increase security risks in the long run.
Applicants for visas to the United States need to be subject to
appropriate screening. After September 11, increases in such
screening--carefully targeted at real risks--may be necessary. Having
said that, burdensome laws and regulations, arbitrary decision making,
and a severely overburdened consular corps still make it unnecessarily
difficult to study in the United States. With effort, this barrier
could be significantly reduced.
Visas are not the only problem. One would never know it from what
one reads in the press, but the lives of those students who make it
here are in fact controlled by a large body of federal regulation that
far exceeds that which applies to any other category of nonimmigrant.
Although that is not strictly speaking a barrier to entry, it hardly
presents a welcoming image to those contemplating study in the United
States--especially since September 11, as each new regulation is
trumpeted in a press conference as cracking down on terrorism. Each new
layer of regulation increases the resources--time, personnel, and
money--that schools must spend to comply, robbing them of those
resources for proactive efforts to recruit international students and
enhance their integration into campus and community. This is another
reflection of the absence of strategy--the imposition of costs without
consideration of foregone benefits. Meanwhile, our competitors are
asking the strategic question: How can we streamline our regulations to
enhance our position in the international student market?
The Cost of U.S. Higher Education
Higher education, already expensive for Americans, looks even more
so from abroad. It is a simple competitive fact of life that U.S.
higher education, while of the highest quality, is also the most
expensive--a factor that is only exacerbated as more schools add
international student processing fees to pay for expensive monitoring
systems. Other countries have a cost advantage over us. Because there
is no prospect of changing this factor, the task is to find ways to
ameliorate it.
The Complexity of U.S. Higher Education
The fourth barrier is the flip side of a strength. The U.S. higher
education system is the most complex in the world, and is very
difficult for foreign students to decipher. This is not something we
should want to change, for the diversity of U.S. higher education is a
great strength. In fact, this diversity provides multiple points of
access for foreign students to U.S. higher education, which they do not
find in any other country. With respect to this barrier, the task is to
provide foreign students with the tools to understand and navigate this
complexity, thus turning complexity from a liability into an asset.
recommendations: how to enhance international student access
The United States requires a strategic plan for enhancing
international student access consistent with national and homeland
security. At its most elementary level, a strategic plan must provide a
coherent government approach to international students, as opposed to
an approach where one part of the government cancels out the other.
Accordingly, such a plan must: (1) specify the roles, and provide for
coordinating the efforts, of the principal agencies that must be
involved in a comprehensive effort to recruit international students;
and (2) provide guidance for removing unnecessary governmentally
imposed barriers to international student access. Those two elements
would address the major problems with the U.S. government approach to
international students. In addition, the plan should address the issues
of (3) the cost and (4) the complexity of U.S. higher education.
The task force makes the following recommendations for implementing
a strategy to enhance international student access.
I. Articulate a Policy and Develop a Strategic Plan
The United States government, in consultation with the higher
education community and other concerned constituencies, must develop a
national policy that articulates why promoting study in the United
States to international students is important to the national interest.
Only when that is done will we be able to move to a strategic plan for
promoting U.S. higher education abroad.
II. Develop a Recruitment Strategy
The three federal agencies that share responsibility for
international student recruitment must have their roles specified and
must cease operating in a vacuum, as they do today. Specifically, each
agency must be tasked with the following:
The Department of State
The Department of State must rationalize and create an effective
mandate for the currently under-resourced State Department overseas
educational advising centers. Some 450 advising centers are spread
around the world, existing on a shoestring budget of some $3 million a
year. With that meager amount, the advising centers help to leverage
$12 billion of foreign student spending in the U.S. economy by serving
as the initial gateway for people inquiring about study in the United
States. This is surely one of the most cost-effective government
efforts ever recorded. The task force has nothing but admiration for
the job that the advising centers do with virtually no resources. Yet
they are a shadow of what they could be under a real strategic plan.
More funds are needed--but not yet. First, these centers need to be
given a mission--that of promoting U.S. higher education. The mission
should anchor a strategic plan--one that specifies how many centers
there should be, where they should be located, what they should do, and
how they fit into a strategic international student recruitment plan
for the United States. The task force believes that Congress will
respond to a call by the President to support a strategic effort at a
level that it has not been prepared to provide for the existing effort,
and that the higher education community will be in the trenches with
the administration fighting for that support.
The Department of Commerce
The second task is to rationalize the role of the Department of
Commerce in international student recruitment. An industry that
generates $12 billion of spending in the U.S. economy would seem to
qualify as a business worthy of Commerce Department support. Yet, the
department's effectiveness in promoting this industry is compromised by
its organizational structure and the lack of overriding policy or
direction.
Responsibility is currently claimed by both the Office of Trade
Development. which sees international education as an agenda item in
multilateral trade negotiations, and the U.S. and Foreign Commercial
Service, which sees international students as a marketing issue. Each
appears to go about its business with nearly complete lack of awareness
of the other and therefore lacking a common conception of what each is
trying to do. This not only makes it impossible for Commerce to act
strategically to promote international education products and services,
it also makes it challenging, to say the least, for those who seek to
collaborate with Commerce to promote international education.
The Department of Education
The third task is to provide a clear mandate for the Department of
Education regarding international student recruitment. Other countries'
efforts center on their Ministries of Education. Yet in the United
States, the Department of Education presently seems to have no
strategic role at all when it comes to international student enrollment
in U.S. colleges and universities. The only departmental program that
supports international student recruitment is the U.S. Network for
Education Information (USNEI), a Web site that provides general
information about the U.S. educational system for those from other
countries. In addition, the department participates, with the State
Department, in International Education Week. The task force was
encouraged by the new international education policy priorities
recently announced on November 20 by Secretary of Education Rod Paige,
particularly the component that supports ``U.S. foreign and economic
policy by strengthening relationships with other countries and
promoting U.S. education.'' While we commend the department for these
activities and initiatives, we believe it has the capacity to play a
much greater leadership role in increasing international student
enrollments in U.S. higher education. The assistant secretary for post-
secondary education should be tasked with providing this leadership and
should have the strong support of the secretary.
A Comprehensive Strategy
The fourth task is to coordinate all of these efforts and combine
them into a coherent, comprehensive strategy to promote international
student access. Under that strategy, all of the agencies involved must
deploy their resources in complementary ways with the aim of increasing
international enrollments in U.S. higher education.
III. Remove Excessive Governmentally Imposed Barriers
In the new, post-September 11 security environment, everyone
accepts that greater scrutiny is necessary to try to keep people from
entering the country under false pretenses and to discover them once
they are here. Inevitably, this entails greater government controls on
mobility. This applies no less--and no more--to the minuscule
proportion of nonimmigrant visitors who are students. Because this
population has been especially targeted since September 11, schools
have already been called upon to do their part, and they are devoting
enormous resources to complying with what is required of them.
But in the emotion of the moment, it is too easy to carry that
consensus to its illogical conclusion: The more barriers, the better.
U.S. national interest dictates otherwise. Because of the great benefit
that the United States derives from mobility, the objective should be
the minimum controls consistent with national and homeland security. To
achieve this objective for students, updated legislation, improved visa
screening, and a rational student monitoring system are required.
International student mobility has increased more than tenfold
since our basic immigration law was written, and other immigrant and
nonimmigrant flows have grown concomitantly. U.S. higher education has
also been revolutionized during that time--leading, for example, to the
far greater prevalence of part-time and continuing education.
Demographically, the United States now finds itself with an immigrant-
dependent economy. In the face of these massive shifts, U.S.
immigration laws, their enforcement, and visa practices are still in
the pre-global era. Post-September 11 politics has had the unfortunate
effect of reinforcing their outdatedness, as if we could somehow
insulate ourselves from danger by moving backwards: making our
immigration laws even less reflective of contemporary reality, making
each visa decision take longer, and growing the mountains of unanalyzed
data on international students ever higher.
Security lies in the opposite direction. We need to update our
immigration laws. We need to find ways to make the routine granting of
visas to non-threatening populations easier, so that consular
officials--who will never be able to scrutinize everyone equally--can
devote their attention to the problematic cases. We need to collect the
information that we really need about foreigners in our midst without
diverting scarce resources to expensive systems that produce ever more
data but ever less-useful information. If we do all that, we will make
access to U.S. higher education easier for bona fide students, even as
we increase our security.
An Immigration Law for the Twenty-First Century
The effort to remove unnecessary, governmentally imposed barriers
must start at the level of immigration policy. Immigration law (section
214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) requires that applicants
for nonimmigrant visas be presumed to have an intent to immigrate to
the United States unless they can demonstrate otherwise to a consular
officer--that is, prove a negative. That requirement imposes an
unrealistic burden on students, who are typically not yet sufficiently
well established in their societies to be able to demonstrate a
likelihood of return. It also imposes an unreasonable burden on
consular officials, who are in effect required by law to know the
unknowable and to determine the intent of the visa applicant in an
interview lasting a few minutes. Because the consular decision must
necessarily be based on a guess, this requirement too often produces
arbitrary and unaccountable consular decision making. This creates
great frustration on the part of those who wish to study in the United
States and wreaks havoc with college and university enrollments.
If the policy of the United States were, in fact, as articulated by
section 214(b), we might just have to live with these problems. But it
is not--nor, in this day and age, can it be. As far as students are
concerned, the United States does not, in fact, practice the policy
that they must return to their home country; in practice, we do--and we
should--permit graduates of our educational institutions to adjust
their status legally and remain in the United States if they possess
skills that we need. Demographic trends dictate this policy because the
United States cannot fill all the skilled jobs in its economy from the
native-born population.
Current law does not provide sensible, workable, enforceable
guidance for a global age and a global job market. A huge barrier to
international student access to the United States would be removed,
with no ill effects on safety or security, simply by replacing the
``intent-to-immigrate'' standard with one that is more appropriate for
student visas: Does the applicant have a bona fide reason and
sufficient financial means to enter the United States as a student?
Unlike the question posed by current law, that is an answerable
question. What happens if they wish to stay--which some clearly do
anyway--is a matter governed by other laws. (Like all other visa
applicants, of course, students would still have to undergo applicable
security and background checks, including having their names checked
against terrorist watch lists.)
Only when our 1950s-vintage immigration law catches up to twenty-
first century immigration reality will consular decision making become
rational, predictable, and accountable to those wanting to study in the
United States and to the institutions that seek to enroll them. This
task force proposes that a joint government-higher education task force
be formed to devise a new legislative standard for student visas.
Another legal anomaly deserves mention. Every one of our English-
speaking competitors in the international student market permits
nonimmigrants to pursue short-term study for up to 90 days on tourist
visas. This enables international students to take short-term English
courses or other short-term summer courses in those countries, return
for a week to defend their dissertations, and engage in all kinds of
other short-term educational programs that are common in today's world,
for which a student visa is inappropriate. In the United States, this
practice is technically illegal, and post-September 11 crackdowns
jeopardize these worthy activities. The law needs to be updated to
reflect this common practice.
Improved Visa Screening
Notwithstanding an anomalous decline in visa applications in 2002,
it is predictable that the volume of visa applicants will only continue
to increase over the long term. The State Department's professional
consular officers, scurrilous attacks to the contrary notwithstanding,
do a responsible job, under adverse conditions, of trying to keep up
with the flow. It's an impossible task. As in the classic ``I Love
Lucy'' television show, the conveyor belt is only going to keep moving
faster. Legislating that consular officers must give greater scrutiny
to every applicant and treat everyone as a security risk is like
legislating rain; it just can't happen. Post-September 11, a system is
urgently needed that permits necessary scrutiny of visa applicants
leading to decisions within reasonable and predictable periods of time.
So that they may devote adequate attention to visa applications
with real security implications, consular officers must find ways to
devote less attention to the rest, without any loss of overall
effectiveness. The visa decision cannot be delegated; it is an
essential government function. Some of what informs the visa decision,
however, can be delegated. Through the creative use of partnerships,
consular officers can use others to help inform their decisions. The
result will be better, safer, more reliable visa decisions.
In the student visa area, we propose two such partnerships: first,
a partnership with the higher education community to train new consular
officers in the student visa process; and second, a partnership with
the department's own overseas educational advising centers, whereby the
latter would prescreen student visa applicants. We also propose
increased funding for the consular affairs function in the State
Department's budget.
First, the State Department should ask higher education to produce
and deliver, in partnership with the department, an international
student module for use by the Foreign Service Institute in training new
consular officers. This module would help new officers understand the
foreign policy, educational, and economic roles of international
students in our society; the complexity of U.S. higher education and
the international student admissions process; the documentation
required of such students; the effects on schools when visa decisions
are unpredictable; and other relevant factors. The point is not to
suggest that any of these factors should drive the visa decision; they
should not. The point is to make sure that the decisions are informed
and are not made in an information vacuum, as is too often the case
today. The result will be more rational accountable visa decision
making.
Second, to reduce the burden on consular officers, the Department
should use its own overseas educational advising centers to prescreen
student visa applicants. A model for this exists in Malaysia, where the
overseas educational advising centers have an agreement with the U.S.
consulate that they will prescreen students' visa applications to make
sure that all the necessary documents are in order before sending the
applications to the consulate. (This is particularly important in view
of new, post-September 11 visa requirements, with which students may
not be familiar.) Once the consulate approves the visa, the documents
are sent back to the advising center for the student to pick up. In
denial cases, the consulate returns the documentation to the advising
center, which notifies the student. In this way, two purposes are
accomplished: The consular officer is relieved of routine document
verification and of having to process routine denials based on
incomplete documentation; and recruitment is enhanced by driving
applicants to the centers, where they can be counseled and provided
with information. The British, who have been very effective at
streamlining access for international students, have employed this
method with good results. This is a case where we would do well to
emulate our competitors.
Third, recent congressional attacks on the Bureau of Consular
Affairs ring somewhat hollow in view of the fact that Congress has
routinely underfunded this bureau, as it has much of the Department.
Educators have long advocated greater funding for Consular Affairs.
Thankfully, September 11 appears to have induced Congress to recognize
the necessity of funding Consular Affairs at a level commensurate with
its role as a first line of defense. The task force urges Congress to
follow through and sustain necessary funding increases over time. The
nation asks much of its consular officers; we will only get it if we
pay for it.
A Rational Student Monitoring System
There has been much debate in recent years on the advisability of a
nationwide international student monitoring system. That debate ended
on September 11, 2001; it is not our intention to restart it. Such
monitoring will soon be a reality, with the full support of higher
education.
It is important, however, to remain focused on what the monitoring
system was intended to accomplish. It was intended to be a tool for
enforcing our immigration laws by enabling the government to know if
international students were abiding by the terms of their visas and of
their admission to the United States. And it was billed by the INS as
capable of producing efficiencies for both the INS and academic
institutions in the administration of educational exchange. As such, it
was unobjectionable. It was not intended to be a barrier to exchange.
Unfortunately, as we lead from fear instead of from confidence, the
system threatens to become what it was not intended to be. Many
violations of student status are technical and inadvertent, stemming
from lack of knowledge or understanding by young people of what are,
after all, fairly complex regulations. Others are minor, routine
infractions that the INS has considered to be harmless and, as such,
are rarely subject to enforcement actions. And indeed, it is not
unheard of for students to be deemed, incorrectly, to be out of status
because INS officials do not understand their own regulations.
It has been possible, heretofore, for harmless technical violations
or misunderstandings to be corrected, once discovered, without the
student losing status. The system gave enough discretion to designated
school officials to permit a rule of reason to prevail in the
overwhelming preponderance of the cases that involved infractions with
no national security implications. As we are now only too painfully
aware, there were also enough ``gaps'' in the system to permit
violations with profound national security implications to go
undetected. The task is now to achieve a new balance, which maintains
the attractiveness of the United States as a destination for
international students without sacrificing national security.
It is not clear that the international student monitoring system
that will go into effect on January 30, 2003, will achieve that
necessary balance. The rigidities of the system are so great that
inadvertent loss of status threatens to be a common occurrence, and the
remedies are so difficult that significant numbers of international
students may face significant disruptions in their studies and may even
have to leave the country. This is not idle speculation. Reports have
surfaced periodically since September 11 of international students
being jailed for technical violations with no national security
implications, or due to a misunderstanding of the regulations by
enforcement officials.
It is certainly necessary to tighten enforcement, increase training
for school officials, and do more to help international students
understand how to remain in status and the consequences of failing to
do so. But it is quite simply impossible for the United States to
retain a robust international student industry if students must live in
constant fear of making a mistake that costs them their education or
even their freedom. Our competitors do not impose such burdens. It is
they who will reap the benefits, and the United States that will incur
the loss, if we continue down this road.
IV. Address Issues of Cost
Although U.S. education is of the highest quality available
worldwide, other countries appear to enjoy a competitive cost advantage
over the United States. This primarily reflects the high cost of higher
education in the United States for those unable to take advantage of
in-state tuition rates. It also reflects the high cost of living and,
for some, the high cost of travel to the United States, and is often
exacerbated by a strong dollar on the exchange market.
What we need are more financial aid opportunities for international
students and an easy mechanism for accessing information about these
options. Through creative partnerships among the stakeholders who have
an interest in increasing international student access to the United
States--including higher education institutions, the U.S. government,
foreign governments, and the business community--the task force
proposes that more loans, tuition exchanges, and scholarships be made
available to international students.
Loans
More private loans need to be available to foreign students and
their families, particularly loans that permit co-signers from abroad.
There are several promising models for such loans.
Citi-Assist International Loans and Citi-Assist Global
International Loans, both offered by Citibank, have operated
successfully for years. Unlike most other loans, which require a U.S.
co-signer, these loans simply require that the student be enrolled at a
participating school. If the student does not have sufficient
individual financial assets, the student must only have a declaration
of financial support from a family member.
Another model is the Duke MBA Opportunity Loan. International
students attending the Fuqua School of Business may borrow up to
$30,000 per academic year with a 5 percent disbursement fee and an
interest rate of prime plus 2 percent. This partnership exemplifies the
kind of cooperation that is needed between higher education
institutions and the business community--in this case, between Duke's
business school, SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae), and HEMAR Insurance
Corporation.
In yet another innovative program being considered by First
Financial Partners, Inc., families abroad could contribute money toward
an investment fund that will safeguard their money in U.S. dollars and
would accrue tax-free interest that can be invested in their children's
education at U.S. institutions. This type of program is particularly
promising for students in countries where their families know early on
that they will want to send their children to study in the United
States and where depositing money in their own national banks is viewed
as high risk for them.
The task force calls upon the higher education and business
communities to develop more innovative partnerships like these to make
U.S. higher education more accessible to foreign students.
Tuition Exchanges
In what is truly a reciprocal exchange, students from other
countries change places with students from the United States. They pay
tuition and fees to their home institutions, so no money changes hands
between the participating institutions. Because tuition expenses can be
significantly lower in other countries, this type of tuition exchange
offers foreign students an affordable opportunity to study in the
United States, while encouraging U.S. students to study abroad. There
are many examples of such partnerships between U.S. and foreign
universities, operated successfully at minimal cost to both
institutions. Many more such programs are needed.
Scholarships
There are also existing scholarship programs for international
students that could serve as models for a broader effort. The
approaches fall into two categories: first, at the state level,
providing financial aid for international students in exchange for
public service commitments by the students to the states; and second,
at the national level, providing financial aid for international
students to further specific U.S. foreign policy and international
development objectives in the students' home countries.
At the state level, colleges and universities (even public ones)
can offer tuition scholarships to international students. In a program
to encourage public service in exchange for financial aid, the
University of Oregon system offered out-of-state tuition remission to
international students. In return, the students provided services to
the campus and the local community, including providing translation
services for local businesses and teaching in elementary schools about
their countries and cultures. The program proved so valuable that, when
the system lost its ability to offer tuition remission, the chancellor
decided to keep it going by offering tuition scholarships financed with
university funds.
To this point, our recommendations for addressing the cost of
higher education for international students would entail minimal or no
cost to the public treasury. This approach is deliberate. However, a
strong case can be made for publicly funded scholarship programs
targeted at countries or regions where they would serve a strong U.S.
foreign policy interest. This applies particularly to areas, such as
Africa, whose economic development is important to the United States
but that are too poor to afford their people the opportunity for a U.S.
education. Where international student access is important to U.S.
interests, but cost considerations are an obstacle to such access,
appropriate programs are needed to address that problem.
In one model, the U.S. Agency for International Development offers
seed money for scholarship programs for study in the United States that
require the recipients to repay the scholarship through service in
their home country. These partnerships have led to programs like one
currently operated by the Academy for Educational Development. The
program brings Botswanan students to the United States for their
education in exchange for a commitment by the students to spend 2 years
in public- or private-sector service in Botswana upon completion of
their program. The program, initially funded with AID seed money, is
now fully funded by the Botswanan government and is very successful,
boasting a 99 percent return rate.
The Vietnam Education Foundation Act, sponsored by Senators John
Kerry and John McCain, represents a different approach. The act creates
a Vietnam Debt Repayment Fund, into which payments on debts assumed by
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, which were owed to the United States
by the former South Vietnamese government, are deposited. The fund will
be used to finance higher education in the United States for Vietnamese
nationals, as well as service in Vietnam by U.S. citizens. The act
provides for matching contributions by U.S. universities. Variants of
this model could be used to recycle the debt payments of other
countries into activities that support their economic development in
furtherance of U.S. foreign policy goals.
These are examples of highly cost-effective programs that provide
international students with opportunities to pursue higher education in
the United States and, in the process, enhance the public good in
various innovative ways. It should not be difficult to increase
significantly the funding available for international students by
building on these models. The task force calls for more such programs.
A Financial Aid Information Clearinghouse
Our nation's most important disadvantage pertaining to the cost of
education is that other countries are aggressively marketing their
advantages over the United States, while we are doing nothing to combat
the notion that a U.S. education is unaffordable. As loan, scholarship,
and tuition exchange opportunities are expanded, a comprehensive
resource must be developed for international students to help them
understand the financial options available to them. This needs to be
part of the comprehensive information system on U.S. higher education
that we propose in the next section.
V. Address Complexity With a Marketing Plan
To arrest the decline in the U.S. share of the international
student market, the United States, through the coordinated efforts of
the Departments of State and Commerce, must do what its competitors are
doing: strategically market overseas the value of a U.S. education. The
marketing strategy must address the problem of the complexity of U.S.
higher education by transforming complexity from a liability into an
asset. This must be done in two ways: first, through a coherent message
that explains to consumers why the product is superior; and second,
through an effective information tool that enables consumers to
navigate the complexity and locate their needs in relationship to what
the product offers.
A Coherent Message
The U.S. government and higher education institutions need to send
out a dear, consistent message about U.S. higher education. The message
should convey that the United States can provide a high-quality
educational opportunity for everyone, even if they have limited
financial means. Our higher education system's great diversity can help
each individual who seeks an education in the United States to find the
right fit. The message should help students understand that a U.S.
education, although costly, is the best investment that students can
make in their lives, careers, and financial future. It should convey to
international students--and their families--that they will be welcomed
by the U.S. government, the universities, and the American public and
that they will be safe.
Essentially, this is the branding of U.S. higher education as value
and opportunity. A brand is a template that both government agencies
and schools can use to craft their own messages to ensure that the
overall U.S. message is consistent. By producing high-quality
materials, which can be modified as necessary and distributed widely by
all stakeholders, branding allows the pooling of resources for maximum
impact and encourages the best use of marketing dollars.
In crafting this message, the State Department public affairs
offices and Commerce Department Foreign Commercial Service offices
should share responsibility for overseeing the market research
necessary to enhance our understanding of how to appeal to overseas
audiences on behalf of U.S. higher education. Admissions professionals
in the schools, many of whom possess considerable expertise on
marketing to international students, should be enlisted in this effort.
An On-line Resource
If the message is effective in conveying that a U.S. education is a
good value, then students will want to know how to access this value.
It is essential to develop a user-friendly, comprehensive,
sophisticated, Web-based information resource through which
international students wifi be able to understand and assess the higher
education options available to them in the United States and identify
possible financing options. This online resource should allow students
to rank their personal preferences (cost, location, academic program,
etc.) and should provide links to institutions that match up with their
preferences. Ideally, these links would then allow students to apply
for admission online.
CONCLUSION
The need is clear. Rather than retreating from our support for
international student exchange--and foregoing its contribution to our
national strength and well being--we must redouble our efforts to
provide access to foreign students while maintaining security. We need
to develop a strategic plan for promoting study in the United States to
international students, rationalize the recruitment effort, remove
excessive governmentally imposed barriers to access, and address issues
of cost and complexity. The task force calls on the U.S. government,
academe, the business community, and all who care about our nation's
future to step up to the task of ensuring that we continue to renew the
priceless resource of international educational exchange. We pledge our
continuing support for the effort.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. Thank you
also for including in the packet a good number of suggestions
and publications that are very important and that exemplify the
work of your group. We appreciate that.
I would like to call now on Dr. Kattouf.
STATEMENT OF HON. THEODORE H. KATTOUF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMIDEAST
Ambassador Kattouf. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee:
I am honored to appear before you today on the status of
international students and exchange visits in the United States
in light of the new visa regulations and other measures
implemented since 9/11.
As a former ambassador to both Syria and the United Arab
Emirates and as someone who has spent 21 of 31 years in the
foreign service at U.S. embassies and missions in the Arab
world, I well appreciate the threat that terrorists pose to
this country. I have been on the wrong end of a couple incoming
missiles myself when I was out in the field. But, as we all
know, U.S. security does not depend solely on the strength of
our armed forces or on the effectiveness of the CIA, the FBI,
Homeland Security, U.S. Customs, and others charged with
uncovering and preempting plots against us.
As this committee well recognizes, the war against
terrorism requires that we isolate to the greatest extent
possible those who would slaughter civilians and indeed stop at
virtually nothing to achieve their goals. We cannot kill even
the most twisted and evil ideology with force alone.
I think, as is clear from everybody who has spoken today
and from the opinions expressed by committee members that
exposure to liberal education and values such as academic
freedom and open inquiry are among the best tools we have to
inspire a new generation in the Arab and Islamic world to
resist the siren calls of those who would subvert one of the
world's great monotheistic religions to achieve their political
interests.
Let me say in this regard that the Fulbright program
continues to be one of the best means ever conceived to bring
international scholars and academics here and to send our young
scholars and academics abroad. In the past decade alone, tens
of thousands of Middle Eastern students, scholarship recipients
as well as those who are self-funded, have returned to their
own countries and assumed leadership positions in which they
are able to serve as cultural interpreters by virtue of their
first-hand perspectives on U.S. society.
It has already been noted that 10 of 21 outgoing Jordanian
cabinet members--they have just had a cabinet re-shuffle--but
10 out of 21 of the last cabinet are graduates of U.S.
universities. It may surprise some to learn that most of the
ministers in the government of Saudi Arabia and also in their
consultative council have received degrees from U.S.
universities. This is true across the Middle East, not
necessarily in those numbers, but there are people who are
holding positions in business, academia, and other professional
leadership positions.
Mr. Chairman, I know that you and your committee, along
with some other key Members of Congress, strongly support
programs and policies that are both consistent with homeland
security and keeping the welcome mat out for legitimate
students who wish to benefit from our educational system and
learn more about our way of life.
My organization is much smaller than the others who have
testified here today, but we do have 15 offices in 11 Arab
countries, that is AMIDEAST. And we are proud that for decades
we have received a grant from the State Department that has
permitted us to assist hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern
students interested in attending U.S. institutions of higher
learning. We are no less proud that we manage over 200 Arab
Fulbright students who are currently studying in this country.
My organization, further, has been involved for many years
in various exchange programs, and I want to thank this
committee for the support it has given recently to such
innovative exchange programs as the Youth Exchange and Study
program, or YES, that brings Middle Eastern and South Asian
youth to this country for 1 year of high school and home stays
with American families. Similarly, the Partnerships for
Learning Undergraduate Studies, PLUS, program offers
disadvantaged students from the region the opportunity to get a
liberal arts degree in this country; and the Congress has
funded the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which is
administered by the Near East Bureau of the Department of State
and allows organizations like my own to come up with innovative
programs that help fill needs in terms of bringing students to
this country, bringing exchange student professionals to this
country, and doing projects in the field as well.
The response to these new programs has been extremely
positive, even overwhelming. I cite statistics which show that
for every, for instance, scholarship we have in the U.S.
program there are 50 or 100 applicants. I had the honor, Mr.
Chairman, of attending a reception here on Capitol Hill co-
hosted by you and Senator Kennedy, and I can attest to the fact
that all the students I talked with were uniformly
enthusiastic. Their only concern was, how are we going to
explain to the folks back home how good America really is?
I would just say in conclusion, sir, that this committee,
besides having our gratitude, that we need to continue to fund
at a high level such programs as I have mentioned--YES, PLUS,
the Middle East Partnership Initiative. I think more can be
done in this regard and should be done in this regard.
It is also important, as a number of speakers have pointed
out, that the Department of State, the Department of Homeland
Security, and other concerned government entities be adequately
funded to handle their visa processing caseloads, and that they
work smarter and that they work closely and cooperatively
together to refine and streamline the visa issuance and entry
processes. It is in our national interest to get out the word
that the United States remains a country welcoming of foreign
students and other visitors.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Kattouf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Theodore H. Kattouf, President and
Chief Executive Officer, AMIDEAST
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I am honored to testify
before you today on the status of international students and exchange
visitors in the United States in light of the new visa regulations and
other measures implemented since 9/11 to protect the homeland and the
American people. As the former Ambassador to Syria and the United Arab
Emirates, and as someone who has spent 21 years of a 31-year career at
U.S. embassies and missions in the Arab world, I well appreciate the
threat that terrorists pose to our vital interests, and nothing I say
today should be construed as intended to weaken our resolve to combat
them.
U.S. security, however, does not depend solely on the strength of
our armed forces or on the effectiveness of the CIA, FBI, U.S. Customs,
and others charged with uncovering and preempting plots against us. As
this committee well recognizes, the war against terrorism requires that
we isolate to the greatest extent possible those who would slaughter
civilians and, indeed, stop at nothing to achieve their goals. But
military might and timely intelligence cannot do this alone. We can't
kill even the most twisted and evil ideology with force, and indeed,
the use of force sometimes has the unintended effect of strengthening
such ideologies.
It is my firm belief that exposure to liberal education and values
such as academic freedom and open inquiry are among the best tools we
have to inspire a new generation in the Arab-Islamic world to resist
the siren calls of those who would subvert one of the world's great
monotheistic religions to achieve their political self-interests. In
this regard, the Fulbright Program continues to be one of the best
means ever conceived to bring international scholars and academics to
this country and to send our young scholars and academics abroad.
In the past decade alone, tens of thousands of Middle Eastern
students--scholarship recipients as well as those who are self-funded--
have returned to their own countries and assumed senior leadership
positions in which they are able to serve as cultural interpreters by
virtue of their firsthand perspective on U.S. society. I will not be
the first to note that 10 out of 21 outgoing Jordanian cabinet members
and most of the ministers in the Saudi government received degrees from
U.S. academic institutions. Significant numbers of ministers in other
Arab countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait, and Morocco also have
studied in the United States, as have those in business, academia, and
other professional leadership positions regionwide.
Yes, it is true, Mr. Chairman, that disdain for--and suspicions
of--U.S. government policies and intentions are widespread throughout
the region. Indeed, the current level of anti-Americanism is higher
than I can remember it being except at critical times such as during
and after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Yet what we cannot quantify is how
much worse the situation would be for American interests in the region
if there were not a cadre of responsible regional leaders, who through
their U.S. studies, have gained an appreciation of what is good and
decent about America and who know and respect our values.
Mr. Chairman, I know you and your committee, along with some other
key members of the Senate and the House, strongly support programs and
policies that are both consistent with homeland security and keep the
welcome mat out for legitimate students who wish to benefit from our
educational system and learn more about our way of life. My own
organization, AMIDEAST, with 15 offices in 11 Arab countries and
territories, is proud that for decades it has received a grant from the
State Department that has permitted us to assist hundreds of thousands
of Middle Easterners interested in attending U.S. institutions of
higher learning. We are no less proud to have been chosen to manage the
Fulbright Foreign Student Program for Arab grantees, over 200 of whom
are currently studying in this country. My organization has further
been involved for many years with various exchange programs, and I want
to thank this committee for the support it has given recently to such
innovative exchange programs as the Youth Exchange & Study (YES)
program that brings Middle Eastern and South Asian youth to this
country for one year of high school and homestays with American
families; the Partnerships for Learning Undergraduate Studies (PLUS)
program that offers disadvantaged students from the region and South
Asia the opportunity to complete a U.S. undergraduate liberal arts
degree; and for allocating funds at an increasing annual rate for the
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) that is overseen by the State
Department's Near East Bureau. The response to these new programs among
the target populations has been highly positive even in the current
atmosphere, evidenced by the impressive number of applicants for the
YES program in particular--683 in Lebanon (from which 24 were
selected), 449 in Jordan (from which 18 were selected), and 497 in the
West Bank (from which 25 were selected).
I had the honor and pleasure, Mr. Chairman, of attending a
reception here on Capitol Hill co-hosted by you and Senator Kennedy in
honor of the first group of YES students just prior to their return
home. I talked with a number of them, including some students from
Syria where I most recently served. I can honestly relate, Sir, that
each and every one of these young people was enthusiastic about the
high school academic year they had just experienced. Time and again,
they commented that they found Americans warm and welcoming and that
they did not feel themselves strangers once they came to appreciate the
true diversity of this country and the great number of immigrants who
call America home. The one problem--if it can be called that--voiced by
many of these young people was their concern that it would be hard to
explain their positive feelings for this country and its people to
their families and friends back home who had not had the same
opportunity for first-person exposure. Therefore, I laud Congress and
the Administration for renewing and expanding this program from the
initial 160 students who participated last academic year to the 450
expected this year.
Despite the impressive response to the YES program, the United
States risks suffering a net loss if the overall numbers of students
coming here to study are outnumbered by those who make the conscious
choice not to come. Unfortunately, this is a real possibility if not
already a reality. The number of Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Bahraini students
studying in the U.S. fell by over 25% the first academic year after 9/
11. Other countries that sent significantly fewer students included the
UAE, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Oman, Egypt, and Tunisia. Some of these
previously U.S.-bound students have ended up at AUB, AUC, and the other
more recently established U.S.-style universities in the region that
have witnessed a surge in applications; in Qatar's new Education City,
U.S. universities have established campuses and are awarding degrees
identical to those they confer in the United States. While I will be
the first to applaud an increase in the number of individuals who can
benefit from a U.S.-style education in the region, these opportunities
do not provide the first-hand exposure to U.S. culture and society that
is so essential. Meanwhile, more Middle Eastern students are enrolling
in universities in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, whose
representatives are actively recruiting in the region. Word of mouth is
extremely important in the Middle East; and just as many Arabs have
chosen U.S. study because their family and friends had positive
experiences here years ago, today's international scholars will one day
be recommending universities elsewhere in the world if current trends
continue.
Many of the reasons behind the declining enrollments of Middle
Easterners at U.S. universities are well known, but they bear
repeating. Initially, many Arab students heard stories, often
exaggerated, about compatriots in this country suffering hostility and
harassment immediately following 9/11. Worries about personal safety in
the U.S. has largely subsided, but in its place is a growing fear of
being humiliated at points of entry and concern about the U.S. attitude
to the Arab world in general. The speed with which new visa regulations
have had to be formulated and enforced has resulted in considerable
confusion, not least within the U.S. government agencies charged with
implementing the new policies. Some foreign students nearing the end of
successful degree programs have been denied reentry into the United
States or expelled from the United States because of an inadvertent
minor visa violation or a bureaucratic mistake. Others have undergone
intense investigation at their ports of entry--or have been sequestered
for hours only to eventually be given a cursory interview and permitted
through. The latter has occurred with a number of U.S. government-
sponsored students and other visitors administered by AMIDEAST, and in
some cases the problem seems to have been insufficient immigration
staffing rather than concerns about the visitors themselves. Sometimes
these situations can be rectified, but by then students may have missed
a semester or more of study and incurred significant additional
expense, not to mention the ill will generated in the process.
While the number of U.S. study-related visits to our field offices
is on the upswing after two years of decline, far fewer students appear
to be actively pursuing U.S. study options. Attendance at our
preadmissions advising sessions reached a high of over 9,000 students
in calendar year (CY) 2000, after which we have experienced a steady
decline to just over 5,000 students in CY 2003; statistics from the
first half of CY 2004 indicate that this trend is continuing. Our field
staffs confirm that the fear of running afoul of visa regulations
during a long course of academic study--and of lengthy and humiliating
interrogation at points of entry--is discouraging many legitimate
students from seriously considering higher education in the United
States. If fewer Arab youth choose to come to this country for higher
education, who in the next generation will be able to serve as cultural
interpreters? Who will be able to explain that while U.S. regional
policy may fall short in Arab eyes, there is much that is worthy of
emulation in U.S. society?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the importance of
American students and scholars going to the Arab world for study.
Despite the recent targeted violence against Americans and other
foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in particular, many other parts of
the region remain hospitable to visiting scholars, and interest in
study abroad in the region among U.S. universities and students alike
is on the upswing. Anything the U.S. government can do to encourage and
promote this interest is most welcome. It is vital that we continue to
develop linguistic and regional expertise. Failure to do this can
literally kill us. A shortage of linguists, particularly in difficult
Middle Eastern and South Asian languages, too often results in U.S.
foreign affairs and law enforcement agencies being slow to recognize
the importance of information already available to them. According to a
Modern Language Association study released last November, only 8.7% of
all college students are enrolled in foreign language courses, half of
whom are studying Spanish. In a National Geographic survey done in
2002, when there was much speculation that the United States military
would be asked to go into Iraq, only 13% of young adults ages 18-24
could locate Iraq or Iran on a map of the region. By contrast, 34% of
young Americans correctly identified the South Pacific as the location
of the island used for the show Survivor during that television season.
In conclusion, I want to thank this committee and the Congress for
its current commitment to funding the expansion and innovation of
programs intended to bring Middle Eastern students to this country. I
believe that even more can and should be done in this regard. The
safeguarding of our borders must remain a top priority, of course.
However, it is also important that the Department of State, the
Department of Homeland Security, and other concerned government
entities be adequately funded to handle their visa processing caseloads
and that they work closely, cooperatively, and expeditiously to refine
and streamline the visa issuance and entry processes. It is in our
national interests to get out the word that the U.S. remains a country
welcoming of foreign students and other visitors.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
Let me just suggest now that we have a round of
questioning. We will have a 3-minute limit and ration our time.
That will allow us each maybe one question.
I would like to direct my question to you, Ambassador. You
have extensive experience with students from the Middle East.
Picking up a question that Ms. Johnson asked, she said why
spend so much time on people who are obviously no problem?
Devote your time to those that seem to be a problem. Now, there
seem to be two problems in a practical mind. People outside
this hearing might say, on the one hand we talked earlier about
problems of technical expertise or trade secrets or that type
of thing. We were worried about the Chinese and the Russian
students.
But with the Middle Eastern students, many people would
say, well, after all, that is where the war on terrorism is
going on. This is where the people are coming from. Some
Americans would say, well, now you are profiling. You are
looking at very specific countries, and here these people are
perfectly innocent. As a matter of fact they probably oppose
what the mullahs are doing.
How do we get to a point where as a practical measure we
know who we want to look at, and how intensively we want to do
so? Or do we discriminate in any fashion? How do we simplify
the whole business?
Ambassador Kattouf. Thank you for your question, sir. I was
the Ambassador to Syria, where a lot of the most stringent visa
regulations took effect prior to going into effect in a number
of other countries. I can give you a vignette in which a Sunni
Muslim woman, the daughter of two doctors who were well and
favorably known to me, who were upstanding members of the
community, who were very, very pro-American, who had come to
this country all the time, came back to visit her parents
during the summer. While she was there, her visa expired and
the new visa regulations kicked in for Syria. She was working
in her last year for a Ph.D. at MIT in the biological sciences.
Her number one mentor at the university was a Jewish professor
who thought extremely highly of her and had recommended her for
teaching assistantships and the like.
I as the U.S. Ambassador could do nothing to speed the
process up. My word, my knowledge, counted for nothing. It had
to be vetted, her name had to be vetted by Homeland Security,
and it was impossible for me at that time to find out where in
the system, if anywhere, you could intervene.
Finally, we got her back in time to--but it was almost just
serendipity that we got her back in time to do her
assistantship.
These stories can be repeated hundreds and hundreds of
times. Right now, sir, in this country we have 3,500 Syrian-
American doctors, not people who came 100 years ago and are
descendants of people who came 100 years ago, but people who
got their university degrees in Damascus and Aleppo and are
practicing as board-certified physicians in places like
Appalachia today.
So the benefit we have reaped by people coming from all
over the world, including the Middle East, far outweighs any
security threats. And I agree with Ms. Johnson, we need to
concentrate our attention on those who would truly hurt us.
The Chairman. Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to put to each of you, let us do a
hypothetical. Assuming that you have been established as the
coordinator or the person in charge in the Executive Branch of
our government with respect to this visa question, what
changes, what are the top changes you would institute which
could be done, as it were, immediately in order to address this
question?
Why do we not go right across the panel.
Ms. Johnson. Well, the first thing that we need is policy
guidance. There needs to be--the Department of Homeland
Security has a responsibility for the policy guidance under the
law. They, along with the Department of State, need to write
something that is the policy guidance for the consular affairs,
because without that the individual consul who is deciding has
no choice really but to always make the most conservative
decision, because nobody wants to be the one that made the
mistake and they cannot be making individual policy down there.
Secondly, we need to give consulates discretion to grant
waivers of personal appearances based on a risk analysis that
the State Department guidance provides. We need to refine the
controls on advanced science and technology. There are a list
of these which we have given, we have submitted, that are in
your packet. Rather than using up all the time, I could go
through them again, but----
Senator Sarbanes. We will take a look at it.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. But I think we have given--and we have
been talking to the Department of Homeland Security. I have to
say that we are working actively with the Department of
Homeland Security and with the Department of State, and there
is progress and we are told that there is more progress under
way and that you will be pleased.
Senator Sarbanes. Who do you work with when you work with
the Department of Homeland Security?
Ms. Johnson. Well, starting at the top, with Asa Hutchinson
and Stewart Verteray and on down.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you think there should be a person in
the Department of Homeland Security tasked with just this
problem alone?
Ms. Johnson. Which, the visa problem?
Senator Sarbanes. Yes.
Ms. Johnson. Well, there must be. I do not know. I mean,
there is--there are people with this responsibility, but it is
not the only responsibility at the Department. But there are
individuals whose primary responsibility is visa policy.
Senator Sarbanes. No, I meant just student visas.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, student visas.
Senator Sarbanes. There is such a person?
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Sarbanes. I did not think there was.
Ms. Johnson. Well, you mean, are you talking about a person
who has no responsibility other than student visas?
Senator Sarbanes. That is right--a specific person who is
the go-to person by universities all across the country, by
ambassadors with their problems. This is your fairly high-level
person within the Department who has the authority and the
power to handle just this problem, and everyone knows that this
is the person and this is the office to go to; this particular
problem within the broader visa problem is of sufficient
importance that it ought to have this kind of bureaucratic
structure to deal with it.
Ms. Johnson. Well, I think I am not sure if you are asking
if they should have a place where individual universities are
going to for case work. I do not know that that is what we need
here, because we really need a policy driver that gives,
provides the flexibility for individual consular affairs people
at each embassy to work with. That is the framework.
Senator Sarbanes. I am hard put to see how the guidance is
going to get the consular officer off the hot spot of being
extremely defensive about who he lets in, because no one wants
to be the consular officer who gave a visa to someone who turns
out to be a bad actor.
Ms. Johnson. Exactly, right.
Senator Sarbanes. You are finished if that happens. So
somehow you have to get it to a point where you have people who
are prepared to make these decisions and in effect take the
responsibility for them. I am searching for a way to do that,
to break through the system in order to make it work.
Ambassador Kattouf. Senator, if I may, if might say, I as a
former Ambassador, I think that is an excellent idea, that
there needs to be an ombudsman maybe in the Department of
Homeland Security, somebody who could cut across all the
various agencies that vet visas and run the name checks and
say, okay, we have an ambassador out here or we have a consul
general out here or a Fulbright commission out here who have
reviewed this person. We know who this person is, even if their
name is similar to that of a terrorist because they have a
tribal name or something. We know this is not the person you
are looking for. It is not necessary to do 6 months of further
background checks. We know who we have got here; please admit
this person.
Because you are absolutely right, the consuls cannot take
that responsibility. The vice consuls are finished if they just
make one mistake of a serious nature.
The Chairman. Thank you for that suggestion.
Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will make a brief comment and ask one question so we have
time for Senator Coleman, who has displayed such an interest in
this subject. On Senator Sarbanes' comment about rationale, I
would guess the rationale for all this is, for the importance
of the visas, is, one, public diplomacy. One could argue that
the best spent dollars that the United States has ever spent on
improving our position around the world has been at American
universities educating people from around the world. I believe
that.
Two, jobs. The National Academy of Sciences says that half
our new jobs since World War II have come from investments in
science and technology, and you have told us or reminded us
that a quarter to a third of our science and engineering
degrees, new degrees, are held by foreign--well, more than that
are held by foreign, earned by foreign nationals. But maybe a
third of them stay here.
Then the third is--and I do not mean this in any
disparaging way--600,000 students times whatever the tuition is
is a lot of money, and that is very important to many colleges
and universities in the United States. They are glad to have
the customers.
My question is this. Are you involved with the national
laboratories in your work to solve this problem? They have the
same problem. They are similar institutions. They are managed
by yet another department of our government, the Department of
Energy, and might be a valuable ally in solving the problem.
For example, three physicists approved to do research at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory went to Canada for a conference
during their stay at Oak Ridge and were not allowed to return
to Oak Ridge, so they spent the next 6 weeks in Canada trying
to get back. The same sort of problem that you have with
repetitive visas.
So my question is, are national labs involved in the work
you are doing at all? Do you work with them?
Dr. Goodman. Senator, many of us have also testified with
the National Academy of Sciences, which takes also the lead in
the scientific community for just this thing. We all face
similar problems. We communicate with each other a great deal.
I think Senator Sarbanes has really hit the nail on the
head. If we had the Homeland Security counterpart to the
Assistant Secretary for Cultural Exchange at the Department of
State, it would elevate the problem and also the urgency of the
solution in that Department in the way that the State
Department has acted very proactively. They are not the
problem. It is the other Department and they need to treat
educational exchange and scientific exchange as just as
important as any other aspect of their business in homeland
security.
Ms. Cotten. Might I add? Once we have done all of this--and
people mentioned before. Once we have subjected each of these
people to this review and we have decided that they can come
in, then give them visas that are the duration of their
programs, that are tied directly to the educational or research
activities, rather than truncated.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
Senator Coleman.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I take great pleasure in having Ms. Johnson here. She is a
former lieutenant governor of the State of Minnesota. Eleven
years ago we participated in a series of debates together when
we were both candidates for mayor of the city of St. Paul. So
we have all come a long way since those days. It is great to
have you here.
Reflecting on the issue raised by my colleague from
Maryland, the idea of having a single person in Homeland
Security, I would also raise at least from my discussion of
these issues a larger need for coordination among a number of
agencies. I do not know if the Department of Education has a
specific role in this, but you would think they would be
involved in some of these discussions. The Department of
Commerce, Department of State, they have programs to promote
higher education. I think they have got to be at the table. My
sense is that their efforts are not well coordinated.
The Department of Homeland Security has a clear role in
this, but I am not sure if their activities, if they are
involved in this discussion integrated with others. So I
would--as we focus on a question of perhaps an ombudsman, I am
certainly willing to explore that idea.
Could you talk to me about how do we bring together the
various agencies of government so we are all focusing on the
same page and on the same tune? I will add just a second part
to the question. I worry about the outreach. Assuming we make
changes, I think there is concern in the world today in terms
of whether folks want to come here. I think our competitors,
Australia and England, are doing a heck of a job marketing.
They are selling. Though we have a multitude of opportunity
here, I am not sure that we are doing the best job of selling
our products.
Can you talk to me about coordination and then marketing,
reflections? Mr. Goodman, Dr. Goodman.
Dr. Goodman. Thank you, Senator. We have an executive order
which establishes an International Education Week under the
guidance of the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of
State. We do not have as a national policy of international
education which provides the resources, the policy guidance,
gets all the players at the table, and does what other
countries that are competing with us every day do, as Britain
does, as France does, as Germany, Japan, Australia, countries
we have talked about this morning.
So a major step forward would be for this country to have
not only an International Education Week, but a national policy
for international education.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, very helpful.
Any other comments? Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I think the issue of coordination is
essential, and the international education policy that Dr.
Goodman just talked about is part of a proposal and was
reflected in the Senate Resolution 7 that you co-authored, Mr.
Chairman.
I think that the lack of a policy and the lack of
coordination is one of the most significant impediments to
moving forward, because there are so many unintended
consequences of virtually every fix that we come up with. So
without that policy and without an inter-agency look at this,
we will just go from one more unintended consequence to
another, and we are getting ourselves in a deeper hole and we
must work on this in a more disciplined way.
Senator Coleman. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Coleman.
Let me just comment in summary. The last hearing we had on
this general subject, we had where you are now sitting
representatives from the State Department, from Immigration,
from Homeland Security, in an attempt for each of these
officials to listen to each other as well to our general pleas
for progress. I state it that way. It is not incrementalism,
but we appreciated that they were not going to all change their
minds and policies during one hearing. We were asking them to
consider the problem together.
We had on that occasion people from the tourism industry in
addition to education. The thing was oriented much more toward
the trade impact and imbalances in terms of income and so
forth. Of course, the trade people had a whole raft of things
about why tourism is down in various parts of our country, and
they went through all of this.
Our officials are cognizant of this. They are sensitive to
this. However, I think the hearing today refines a good number
of points. It is important that we try to find out what happens
with regulations and statutes, specifically which agencies are
players and which need to coordinate or listen to each other or
can unilaterally make changes.
In the collective testimony that the witnesses have given,
including both our first panel and this panel, there are a
number of pointed suggestions, including the idea of a
roundtable of sorts. I am trying to envision in my mind's eye
who all needs to be around the table, but I have some pretty
good ideas. The Senators who were here today have manifested a
strong interest for a long time in these issues, as have you,
the witnesses.
We will do our best to push ahead and we will try to do so
in a timely way. Although the Congress will not be in session,
we suspect, through much of the rest of this year, some of us
will, in fact, still be working at our day jobs and we will try
to formulate some plans and maybe even some activities or
meetings that will be helpful.
I thank each one of you for your testimony, as well as your
colleagues who helped you prepare for the hearing, and all
Senators who have participated.
So saying, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Statements and Questions and Answers Submitted for the
Record
Prepared Statement of Senator Russ D. Feingold
Thank you to the Committee for holding this hearing today. It is
imperative that we look closely at how our visa regulations are
affecting international student and researcher access to the United
States. In our efforts to enhance our national security, we must
remember that international exchange programs also contribute to making
America safer. In an increasingly interconnected world, exchange
programs equip Americans with the necessary skills to tackle global
problems, such as dismantling terrorist networks and stemming the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to compete in the
global marketplace. Exchange programs also assist in dispelling
negative stereotypes of Americans. They foster trust and mutual
understanding and allow the United States to transcend anti-American
rhetoric and define itself to others.
I believe that diplomacy must occur at all levels of society and
not only through government representatives. For this reason, I
introduced S. Res. 313, the People-to-People Engagement in World
Affairs resolution, with Senator Chuck Hagel. This resolution is a call
to Americans to look beyond our borders to engage with the wider world
at an individual, human level. It encourages Americans to seize
opportunities to engage in the global arena--through participating in a
professional or cultural exchange; studying or volunteering abroad;
working with an immigrant or refugee group in the United States;
hosting a foreign student or professional; participating in a sister-
city program; and learning a foreign language. This resolution supports
the efforts, of so many organizations, some of whom are represented at
this hearing, to increase international exchange, awareness and
understanding.
I am especially proud of my constituents in Wisconsin, who have
continued to demonstrate a commitment to international education.
Wisconsinites have opened up their homes to international students and
professionals from all over the world. They have trained dairy farmers
in South America and Eastern Europe, participated in sister-city
exchanges with Russia and Colombia, traveled to refugee camps in
Thailand, built schools in Tanzania, and hosted Pakistani educators.
Wisconsin is also one of the biggest contributors of Peace Corps
volunteers in the United States, and Wisconsin's universities and
colleges host students from around the world. Through these activities,
my constituents have fought stereotypes and created openings for
greater trust and cooperation.
The 9/11 Commission recommended that we ``defend our ideals abroad
vigorously'' and ``act aggressively to define'' ourselves in the
Islamic world through a variety of channels, including rebuilding
scholarship and exchange programs that reach out to others abroad.
Congress must commit to assist in creating a predictable, transparent
and timely visa process that protects our national security, in order
to facilitate these types of programs. I believe that we can
simultaneously protect our country and welcome international students
and researchers.
______
Response by Marlene Johnson to Question From Senator Feingold
Question. What do you believe are the major contributing factors to
declining application rates from international students to study in the
United States, as the statistics seem to demonstrate? Is it a
perception of an arduous visa process, the actual visa process itself,
anti-American sentiment, the attractiveness of other countries to
student, or other factors?
Answer. Unfortunately, I think each of the factors you've listed
has contributed to something of a ``perfect storm'' leading to
declining application rates. The visa process was incredibly arduous
and unpredictable for quite some time after 9/11. While the Departments
of State and Homeland Security have made much progress over the last
few months, which we truly appreciate, problems remain.
For instance, Visas Mantis security checks are taking much less
time on average than they were last year, or even earlier this year,
but far more people are being subjected to them--requests for these
checks have increased from only 1,000 in FY2001 to nearly 22,000 in
FY2004. And the same people are often caught up in the process all over
again when they leave the country for a short period of time, and then
return--even when they're returning to resume the exact same program.
Moreover, the perception that it is unnecessarily difficult to
obtain a visa to study in the United States will be difficult to quell
without proactively and decisively addressing it. As they say, ``you
only get one chance to make a first impression.'' For many prospective
students who were ``introduced'' to us during these tumultuous times,
we cannot just sit back and hope they will give us a second chance. We
need to redeem ourselves and roll out the welcome mat.
Other countries have been challenging our near-monopoly of the
international student market for years--and they are more than happy to
step into the void we are currently leaving. We need to reestablish the
United States as the destination of choice for international students.
To do this, we will need a national strategy--which my organization has
outlined in a report entitled ``In America's Interest: Welcoming
International Students'', which I would be happy to share with the
Committee.
______
Responses by Ambassador Ted Kattouf to Questions From Senator Feingold
Question. How has the growing anti-Americanism in the Middle East
affected your programming?
Answer. AMIDEAST enjoys a longtime, well-regarded presence in the
Middle East and North Africa. Our mission is to strengthen
understanding and cooperation between peoples of the region and the
United States, which we do through assisting individuals interested in
pursuing U.S. study, carrying out institutional development projects in
the region, and teaching English to interested parties. For the most
part, these programs have not been affected by changing regional
perspectives vis-a-vis the United States. In recent years, our office
functions have become more security-conscious to some degree, but not
in a manner that affects our work. In Lebanon, Jordan, and Northern
Iraq, for example, AMIDEAST is intentionally subtle in its signage in
order not to draw attention to an American-based organization and its
local clients. In certain offices in the region, we employ a security
guard. Occasionally, our offices may close on recommendations from the
U.S. Embassy or the local security services, but this happens more
often in areas of greater tension like the West Bank and Gaza than it
does for the region as a whole.
Question. How receptive are people in the Middle East to exchange
programs with the United States and to learning English?
Answer. AMIDEAST's three activities which are most indicative of
public interest include advising services for students interested in
U.S. higher education, recruitment for U.S.-bound exchange programs,
and English language education. Overall, our statistics indicate a
consistently high level of interest in exchange programs and language
learning, while the practical difficulties many students associate with
U.S. study compromise advising numbers.
Statistics on the number of students taking advantage of our free
advising services have exhibited a decrease since 2001, with the
numbers beginning to recover in 2003. Several country-specific examples
follow.
In Egypt, there has been a 30% decline in advising,
accompanied by a 10% decline in the number of students studying
at U.S. institutions.
Since the introduction of more strictly imposed visa
regulations, Kuwait has experienced a 50% decline in
applications to the United States.
In Lebanon, attendance at regular advising sessions deceased
by 52% in the year following 9/11, and remains 41% lower
through CY2003, although the numbers have begun to climb again.
Attendance at the free, weekly graduate advising session on
September 10, 2001 was 93 attendees; weekly attendance since
then averages 10 students per week.
In Syria, educational advisers report increased interest in
American-style universities in the region as an alternative to
institutions in the U.S., with 50% more applications to the
American University in Beirut, 32% more to the American
University in Sharjah, and 68% more to the Lebanese American
University.
During advising sessions in Morocco, attendees are asking
more questions about American universities in Europe with a
special emphasis on those located in Spain.
Yet while the number of students taking advantage of our advising
services has declined, applications for exchange programs continue to
increase. In three of the U.S. government-sponsored exchange programs
for which AMIDEAST conducts recruiting in the region--Youth Exchange
and Study (YES), Partnerships for Learning Undergraduate Study (PLUS),
and the Fulbright Foreign Student Scholarship Program--demand far
outstrips the available slots. For newer programs like YES and PLUS,
which are just entering their third year of recruitment, application
numbers continue to increase. It is significant that these programs
offer opportunities at several levels of education: YES targets for
high school students, PLUS is for undergraduates, and Fulbright funds
graduate students. Students and their families at all of these levels
express keen interest in the opportunities available in a U.S.
education.
Third, AMIDEAST's English language course enrollments have
increased steadily over the past decade, with an appreciable increase
especially since 2001. For fiscal year 2000, which closed at the end of
September 2001, regional English language course enrollments were
12,854. In the next fiscal year, enrollments rose to 15,565, increasing
again to 20,816 in FY2003 and to 25,569 in FY2004. Put more succinctly,
AMIDEAST's English language program enrollments have more than doubled
since 2001, indicating an increasing interest in the opportunities
provided by learning the language, even as it is increasingly difficult
for students to take advantage of U.S. study opportunities.
Question. How often do you confront misperceptions of the United
States in your daily work?
Answer. Broadly speaking, people in the Middle East and North
Africa tend to make a distinction between U.S. foreign policy in their
region, and the culture, opportunities, and people they may encounter
in the U.S. For example, a Middle Eastern student may oppose U.S.
foreign policy, but have a positive view of Americans and be
enthusiastic about the opportunity to study in the U.S. Accurate and
inaccurate perceptions may more often stem from an unwelcoming
experience, either at the Embassy or consulate, or upon encountering
the airport security apparatus. Word of mouth is a particularly
meaningful conduit in the region, and one student's bad experience can
be repeated ad infinitum, in many cases serving to discourage other
students. This information contributes to the perception that students
are unwelcome in educational contexts, when the opposite is true. Our
educational advisers in the region work to correct these misperceptions
and encourage students to continue applying to programs in the U.S.
______
Prepared Statement of Tim Honey, Executive Director, Sister Cities
International
On behalf of the 700 U.S. communities partnered with more than
1,800 international communities in 125 countries, I want to thank the
committee for addressing the issues surrounding the current visa policy
as it impacts international educational, cultural and development
exchanges. Sister Cities International is an international nonprofit,
citizen diplomacy network that creates and strengthens partnerships
between U.S and international communities at the local level. Sister
Cities International works to promote sustainable development, youth
involvement, cultural understanding, and humanitarian assistance
through citizen diplomacy. Citizen diplomacy is a peaceful way to
promote American foreign policy by establishing links between people
within the international community. Sister Cities International works
to create citizen-to-citizen connections by promoting peace through
mutual respect, understanding, and cooperation at the local, county and
state level. Annually, 7,000 to 13,000 citizen exchanges occur between
sister city programs.
In the three years since September 11, 2001, the need to eliminate
global terror and institute avenues of intercultural understanding has
grown. Today, citizen diplomacy programs hold the highest incentive for
governments who are interested in establishing goodwill between states.
International education and exchange programs are critical elements in
the conduct of U.S. foreign policy and advance our national security
interests. The United States must make deliberate efforts to forge
sustainable, mutually cooperative relationships between the U.S. and
other countries around the globe, especially in the Middle East,
Africa, and Commonwealth of Independent States and Russia, in order to
rebuild global security. Sister Cities International is well positioned
to play an integral role by supporting long-term community partnerships
through reciprocal exchange programs.
Today, the impact of international exchanges is being significantly
reduced by the current visa policy. Last year alone, many sister city
programs have been affected by visa decisions that have reduced or
limited the ability of sister city affiliated groups in East and West
Africa, Russia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East to come to the
United States on official exchanges between sister cities. For
instance, in Russia, participants have been denied visas on a continued
basis to travel on sister city exchange programs. In many cases, these
individuals have been involved with their respective sister city
programs for ten to fifteen years, and all of the sister city visitors
have returned home to share their ideas and experience from the U.S.
Despite the long-term relationship and clear ties to their homes and
jobs, they were denied entry to the United States.
Of particular concern in Russia is the tendency for individuals
between the ages of 15-30 to be denied visas to participate on sister
city exchanges. Youth exchanges are an important component of Sister
Cities International as they build connections for our youth to work
and communicate cross-culturally with one another. Without educating
youth around the world about the opportunities and cultures that exist,
we deny them the ability to make close friendships and the exposure to
American cultures, values and beliefs. Sister city partnerships are
unique because youth are able to explore new experiences and new ideas
when they are able to participate on international exchanges. As one of
our sister city communities writes: ``During a visit to Togliatti
[Russia], I proposed an education program to benefit a young female
Russian teacher. . . . [the young Russian teacher was denied a visa] .
. . I asked if she had given a reason for the denial; she replied that
she had not given a reason, but had been questioned in a manner that
would suggest she was suspected of being a spy. She added that her
interview was conducted in a hostile manner, full of accusation and
innuendo.''
In Ghana, where we have strong sister city programs, sister city
participants in Cape Coast, Ghana (sister city with Hanover Park, IL)
were denied visas on two occasions even though they were participating
on a federally sanctioned HIV/AIDS prevention and education grant
program through the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational
and Cultural Affairs. The delegations included the Mayor of Cape Coast
and a number of local government officials--all of whom have
significant ties to their hometowns. In Tamale, sister city to
Louisville, KY, exchange participants seeking to attend Louisville's
2004 Sister City Summit were also denied visas. Again, the delegation
included local government officials and civil servants. The Summit
involved all six of Louisville's sister cities and celebrated the 25th
Anniversary of the signing between Louisville and Tamale.
It is clear from these examples that a more coherent, transparent
and predictable visa policy is needed to ensure that international
exchange participants traveling on officially recognized programs are
able to enter the United States. To that end, Sister Cities
International recommends that the Department of State and the
Department of Homeland Security review the current visa policy as it
pertains to international exchange participants, especially for
students and international professionals who seek to enter the United
States on officially-sanctioned exchange programs run by reputable
organizations such as Sister Cities International. While I agree that
efforts must be undertaken to secure the United States against further
terrorist activities, a crucial balance must be struck between our
nation's security needs and the ability of international students and
professionals to visit the United States to learn about this great
nation. International exchange organizations such as Sister Cities
International, the International Visitors program, the Fulbright
Program, the American Council for Young Political Leaders, AYUSA
International, Institute of International Education, and countless
others play a vital role in supporting the Department of State's
citizen diplomacy efforts. Without a transparent and predictable visa
adjudication process, many exchange participants will be denied the
privilege of coming to the United States, and efforts to bridge the
divide that exists between many peoples of the world and the United
States will be hampered.
Sister Cities International believes that three important things
can be done to support a more transparent and predictable visa process.
First, Sister Cities International is willing to provide a letter of
support certifying each sister city exchange program. This letter would
be sent to the public affairs and consular affairs officers at the
respective U.S. Embassy. Recognition by the public affairs or consular
affairs office in each Embassy of the existence of sister city
relationships could also be a mechanism to ensure that visa applicants
are given a fair hearing. Sister Cities International would be open to
discuss with the Department of State possible ways to share information
about our programs with the Embassy staff in specific countries,
especially in countries where we are administering federal exchange
programs.
Second, efforts should be undertaken to give visa applicants better
and more information about how the process works and a concrete
timeframe for adjudication and decision. Steps have already been
undertaken by the Department of State to provide this information
through the new Bureau of Consular Affairs website. However, given that
many applicants live in less affluent countries and do not always have
access to the internet, it is important for consular officials to
provide estimated waiting and processing times through other
communication mediums as well. Sister Cities International is also in
the process of creating a webpage for its members that outlines the
steps necessary to apply for visas for both U.S. and international
exchange participants participating in sister city programs.
Third, Sister Cities International would like to see an appeals
process established that would allow visa applicants the ability to
reapply for a visa if denied without having to go through the entire
process from the very beginning. Because sister city programs rely
heavily on local funding sources, multiple visa application payments
can cause financial hardships and could discourage applicants from
participating in sister city exchanges. In addition, a number of our
programs tend to apply for visas in a group--as the group plans on
attending a conference or summit hosted by our member communities.
Recent summits/conferences have been held in Illinois and Louisville,
KY. In both cases, applying as a group reduced the chance for visas
being issued. An appeals process in this case would greatly expedite
reapplication, hopefully allowing some of the participants to attend
these important summits/conferences.
Sister city and other international exchange programs are time-
tested and uniquely cost effective. They help ensure a prosperous
future for the United States and a more democratic world. Individuals
who participate in citizen diplomacy programs experience a profound
change in the way they think about the world, leading to greater
understanding, mutual respect and cooperation around the complex issues
affecting our global community. This is the vision that drove President
Dwight D. Eisenhower to establish our organization in 1956 and it
remains the vision today by which we hope to promote peace--one
individual, one community at a time.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael Vande Berg, Director of International
Programs, Georgetown University
Chairman Lugar, Ranking Member Biden and Members of the Committee,
I appreciate this opportunity to share with you some of my thoughts on
visa policies as they relate directly to international student and
scholar exchanges. We at Georgetown are immensely proud of the vibrant
international dimension of the educational opportunities we offer our
students. More than 10 percent of our student body and over 500 of our
faculty and researchers are from abroad. I would note that former
Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar has just joined our faculty. This
international presence is central to the University's mission and
character, and it has an important and enduring impact on the
educational experiences of all of our students. I would add that more
than half of Georgetown students study abroad at some time during their
undergraduate academic studies. When it comes to the international
character of the Georgetown educational experience, I think you can see
that it is most definitely a two-way street. And it is a street that we
most definitely want to keep open in both directions.
Being located in the Nation's Capital, we are sensitive to the need
for effective measures to protect against terrorism. We have invested
heavily in security measures on our campus, including what will amount
to more than $150,000 by next year to ensure that the new SEVIS system
is operating effectively. It has not been easy, but we understand the
importance of protecting our students in this post-9/11 world. We are
also keenly aware of the very important role that effectively crafted
international education programs can play in fostering international
understanding. I would mention that two current international leaders--
both of whom have been key allies of the United States in this
challenging time--Philippine President Gloria Arroyo Macapagal and
Jordan's King Abdullah--studied on Georgetown's campus. Their
understanding of this great country of ours has no doubt influenced
their views as international leaders. It is very possible that future
world leaders are studying on our campus today, and I trust that their
experience here will prove beneficial to the United States in the years
to come as has been the case throughout Georgetown's history.
Having said that, I would like to share with the Committee several
examples of situations that have arisen on our campus in recent months
that, while anecdotal, do highlight how current regulatory strictures
have inhibited students and faculty from pursuing legitimate and
beneficial educational and research objectives:
An English language-training program for Japanese teachers
funded by the Japanese Ministry of Education, which had
operated at Georgetown for eleven consecutive years, shifted
the program to an Australian university after encountering
difficulties in securing visas for the teacher participants.
A highly regarded faculty member in the Georgetown
University Department of Physics received funding from the
Department of State's Civilian Research and Development Fund
for collaborative research involving researchers from the
Ukraine and from Georgetown. The Ukrainian scientists' initial
visit to the United States was delayed a full year because of
visa issuance delays. A subsequent trip was delayed, but for a
shorter period of time. As a result, it became necessary to
secure a six-month extension so that the research funded by the
Department of State could be completed.
A Chinese doctoral candidate in the Department of
Psychology, scheduled to graduate this year, has been involved
in significant research on dopamine receptors and hypertension.
The researcher returned to China to explore post-graduation
employment opportunities, but unexpected delays in issuing the
student a new visa put his research at risk because, while he
was awaiting the new visa in China, the mice used in his
experiment were aging beyond the stage useful for the
experiment. A visa was finally granted just in time for the
researcher to present his work to the American Society of
Hypertension last May, but the delays precluded any opportunity
to update his research prior to the presentation.
A Saudi student, whose family currently resides in England,
has traveled without difficulty between the U.S. and England on
several occasions since September 11, 2001, without difficulty.
However, when he applied for a visa revalidation on July 8,
2003, the visa was not issued until December. The student was
forced to miss a semester of academic work and, rather than
graduating with classmates this past May, will instead be
graduating in December.
These are examples of what, I am confident, Members of the Foreign
Relations Committee will understand to be very frustrating situations
which, taken separately, may seem rather insignificant. But when
circumstances like this arise so frequently--and I can assure you that
colleagues in the field of international education on campuses across
the country have been confronting them as well--they have a cumulative
impact that is very significant.
While we appreciate the special efforts of the State Department to
resolve individual cases, I strongly urge that a dispassionate review
be undertaken of the visa policy changes implemented since September
11, 2001, with an open mind to making adjustments which will ease
unnecessary burdens on valuable international educational exchanges
without lessening needed homeland security protections. I know that the
Department of Homeland Security is currently evaluating a proposal to
replace the current requirement for annual security checks for
international students studying in this country with a security
clearance that, instead, covers a four-year period. I strongly
encourage the Department to act quickly and favorably on that proposal.
In my view, it reflects good common sense.
Not long ago, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs
Maura Harty provided educators a very encouraging update on the visa-
processing situation. We appreciate very much her personal
understanding of the value of educational exchanges and the attention
she has given to these issues. Ms. Harty is also undertaking an
important initiative to demonstrate, through consular offices in India
and China, collection of the fees mandated to cover the costs of the
SEVIS system in the same manner that other visa fees are collected.
This has always seemed to me to be the most logical means of collecting
the SEVIS fees without creating a parallel and complicated fee
collection system, and I hope this Committee and others in the Congress
will encourage her initiative and study its results quite carefully.
While a fee collection system relying on payments by mail using checks
or money orders issued by U.S. banks or by credit card over the
internet was implemented by the Department of Homeland Security
effective just over a month ago, many of us in the field remain
concerned that this system will result in a good number of prospective
students not being able to secure visas. In that I have advocated,
along with many others, that the fee would most logically be collected
at consulates as visa applications are submitted, we are hopeful that
Assistant Secretary Harty's demonstration will prove successful and
pave the way for this improved fee collection system to be implemented
across the board in the not too distant future.
In closing, I would like to thank Senator Coleman, a member of this
Committee, for his thoughtful legislative proposal, the International
Student and Scholar Access Act. His approach is an important step in
the direction of making the policies governing international students
workable. In introducing his legislation, Senator Coleman made an
important point that this is ``. . . a world that, at times, I think
may hate us because they don't know us.'' My experience tells me that
the Senator has summed up in a few words a profound reality that many
of us in international education are facing. I trust his words will
guide the Committee in its deliberations.
Thank you.