Testimony By David Ward

• For a printable PDF version of this document, click here.

  My name is David Ward and I am President of the American Council on Education (ACE), an association representing 1,800 public and private colleges and universities. I am speaking today on behalf of nearly 50 higher education associations and the more than 6,800 institutions of higher education and 15 million students we represent.

    I am accompanied by Mr. Ted Goode, the Director for International Students and Scholars at the University of California, Berkeley, and an expert in the complex process by which international students are admitted to U.S. colleges and receive visas to study here.

    The recent terrorist attacks on the United States have prompted a top to bottom review of all sorts of government and institutional activities. This reassessment includes questions about the international students who come to this country on a student visa to study at our colleges and universities. At present, it appears that none of those directly involved in the terrorist attacks entered the United States on a student visa. However, this does not obviate the need for a careful review of the policies and procedures affecting student visas. Madam Chair, we appreciate the chance to participate in this review and thank you for your leadership in this area.

    I am particularly interested in this issue for professional and personal reasons. Before assuming the presidency of the American Council on Education a month ago, I was Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for eight years, where I was a faculty member for 25 years prior to that. As one of the nation's leading research universities, UW Madison always had a large number of foreign students on campus, often more than 4,000. Without exception, I found them to be diligent and hardworking individuals who contributed significantly to the academic and social life of the campus.

    I also have a deeply personal interest in this issue. I first came to the United States on a student visa in 1960 to earn a Ph.D. in geography at Wisconsin. At the conclusion of my Ph.D. program, I was given thirty days to leave the country in accordance with the terms of my visa. After living abroad for three years, I returned to the United States as an immigrant and became a citizen in 1976.

    These experiences have given me a fairly unique position to appreciate the benefits that accrue to international students, American students, and the university community when we invite foreign students to study at our colleges.

    The nation as a whole also benefits from having international students study on our campuses. For example, the enormous advances in computational sciences in the 1980s that helped fuel the American economy in the 1990s, would not have occurred without student and faculty exchange programs that brought so many talented people to this county.

    We deeply appreciate the strong expression of support shown by the Senate in recently passing S. Con. Res. 7, which advocates the establishment of an international education policy to further our national security, foreign policy, and economic competitiveness. We hope the House will soon pass this measure. Now, more than ever, Congressional leadership is essential in ensuring that we equip the best and the brightest — from our own nation and from abroad — to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex — and may I say more dangerous — world.

    In this spirit, we understand that the opportunity to study in our nation comes with rules and responsibilities that affect both students and institutions. American colleges and universities understand this and accept our role wholeheartedly.

    Let there be no doubt of our position: the federal government has the right and the responsibility to protect the safety and security of the United States by deciding who should receive a student or exchange visa. Colleges and universities have an obligation and a responsibility to work cooperatively with the federal government in keeping track of international students when they are enrolled on our campuses.

    I assure you that we take this responsibility very seriously. Any college or university with significant numbers of foreign students maintains an international students' office and devotes considerable resources to continual in-service training in order to keep staff responsible for foreign students up to date on the large and constantly expanding body of regulation that governs this area.

    On the Wisconsin, Madison, campus alone, over 20 full time employees are devoted to monitoring international student visa documentation issues. Nationwide, more than 3,000 higher education administrators have primary responsibility for foreign students on our campuses.

    Our shared responsibilities are not in conflict and the relationship between the colleges and the government is generally constructive and collaborative. At present, colleges are required to maintain more than a dozen types of information on each international student and to make that information available to federal authorities upon request. The question before this committee is how our relationship can be made more proactive and how can we increase our emphasis on safeguards.

    We believe that the single most important step in improving our ability to monitor international students and work with federal authorities will come from the prompt implementation of the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS), now known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS).

    As you well know, this is an electronic tracking system that will enable colleges to notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) whenever there is a "change of status" that may affect a student's visa. Under the law, when SEVIS is fully operational, the INS will be notified of: the identity and current address of all foreign students enrolled at our institutions; their nonimmigrant classification and any change therein; the date their visa was issued or extended; their current academic status, including whether they are maintaining status as a full-time student; and any disciplinary action taken by the school as a result of their having been convicted of a crime.

    Because it is an electronic system, this information will be transmitted to federal officials for appropriate action almost immediately. SEVIS will stand in stark contrast to the obsolete paper and pencil system that is currently in use.

    SEVIS has an important mission. However, it has long suffered from an exceptionally complex funding and administrative structure that has significantly delayed its development and deployment. Indeed, the INS's efforts with respect to this system have created a great deal of apprehension and mistrust on campus about the agency's ability to establish an electronic system without seriously compromising the ability of American colleges to serve international students.

    Unfortunately, Commissioner Ziglar testified on October 3rd and again on October 11th that that the "academic establishment" is responsible for the delay in SEVIS's development and deployment. This is not true. This system has been over budget and behind schedule since it was begun in 1995. However, the history of SEVIS is not what we are here to discuss today.

    Let me be clear. The American Council on Education has never opposed the underlying idea behind SEVIS — an electronic exchange of information about international students to facilitate monitoring and tracking. As I noted above, we strongly believe that the federal government has the right and responsibility to do this and colleges have an obligation to help provide this information. However, we have consistently and strongly opposed the INS's efforts to implement the fee collection system that is designed to cover the cost of developing SEVIS. The first INS proposal would have turned colleges into bill collectors for the federal government and we vigorously opposed that plan. Eventually, Congress blocked the INS from moving in that direction.

    The INS is now considering another approach that we believe would seriously undermine the ability of most foreign students to enroll at American colleges. The new plan would require that students pay the fee using the Internet and a credit card or in American dollars before obtaining a visa. Many international students do not have access to credit cards, American dollars, or the Internet. We believe that this proposal is worse than the initial plan that Congress blocked.

    We strongly support your proposal to authorize an appropriation to cover the costs of developing this database. This step will result in much faster implementation than would otherwise be the case. We appreciate that you have asked the President to allocate funding from the Emergency Supplemental appropriations package (P.L. 107-38) to speed the development and implementation of this system. We have sent the President a letter endorsing your suggestion.

    I would make three additional points with respect to SEVIS. First, the timely implementation of SEVIS will require that the INS establish a clear timetable with interim goals so that Congress and the education community can measure the agency's progress against its own timetable. Based on our experience to date and the delays that have plagued this system from the beginning, we would ask that Congress insist on accountability in meeting this critical deadline.

    Second, despite repeated requests, INS has not provided us with adequate information about the computer system capabilities that will be required to implement SEVIS on campuses. This information is essential for the private sector vendors who will develop and sell the software and for institutions that need to reassess their system capabilities in light of the new responsibilities. Within a week, we will share a detailed list of questions about the computer systems necessary to implement SEVIS and we would greatly appreciate your assistance in getting answers to these questions. Again, we will do all we can to speed implementation, but we require reciprocity from INS to make that happen.

    Third, in addition to funding the development of SEVIS as your legislation provides, we believe it absolutely essential that a modest authorization be available to cover the annual operating costs when the system is in place. As I noted earlier, the primary barrier to acceptance of SEVIS has been the inability of INS to devise a workable method of financing the system. Because neither the State Department nor the INS has been willing to collect the money, the INS has been forced to develop terribly convoluted payment systems. I strongly urge you to add language to your legislation that will provide the modest amount of money needed to operate SEVIS when it is operational.

    We believe that SEVIS is ultimately the only way to obtain the information that the federal government wants and needs. However, since this system will not be operational for several years, we believe that several additional steps could be taken to improve the government's oversight of student visas in the interim. We have already shared these ideas with your office and I have appended a copy of them to this testimony. (See Appendices One and Two.)

    In some cases, we propose that new responsibilities be given to institutions of higher education. In other cases, we believe that the INS should be given additional assignments. Moreover, we believe that it is desirable to provide special scrutiny for potential students from countries on the State Department's watch list of states supporting terrorism.

    Finally, we strongly recommend that the federal government increase funding for Department of State consular affairs offices to enable a more extensive review of student and all other visa applicants. These civil servants are the individuals responsible for making decisions about whether or not to grant a visa and we feel strongly that these offices ought to have the resources to accomplish their mission. At present, most of them do not.

    We understand your concern about the possibility that potential international students may receive more than one I-20 form if they apply to and are admitted by multiple colleges in the United States. The multiple I-20s can be used to obtain more than one visa.

    To address this problem, we propose that colleges send the I-20 form directly to a U.S. embassy or consulate identified by the potential student rather than the current practice of sending an I-20 directly to the student. We believe that the only way to ensure that potential students do not get more than one I-20 is to avoid giving them any I-20s in the first place. In addition, this approach will provide an easy way to ensure that students who receive a visa to study at a particular institution actually enroll there.

    Under our plan, an institution of higher education would provide an I-20 for every international student admitted to an embassy or consulate, identified by the student. As under current practice, a potential student would go to the appropriate embassy or consulate to receive a visa and a visa would only be issued if a valid I-20 were on hand. If a visa were awarded, the embassy or consulate would return a copy of the I-20 to the sending institution to alert the college to expect the student. Such a step would provide an additional mechanism to help schools and the INS identify the small number of students who receive a visa but who fail to enroll.

    We recommend that each American embassy or consulate be asked to identify a "Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Coordinator." The name and address information for this person should be posted on the State Department Web page to permit schools with questions about specific visas to contact the appropriate person directly.

    My colleagues and I look forward to discussing this idea with you in more detail in the near future.

    Madam Chair, you come from the state with the greatest number of international students and you know first hand the benefits of international education. In California alone, 66,305 students were enrolled from abroad in 1999-2000 and they brought $1.6 billion dollars into the state's economy. The overwhelming majority will leave as fans of California and as true friends of the United States.

    Over the last 50 years, efforts to enable foreign students to study on our campuses have paid great dividends for our nation. Most will leave the U.S. at the conclusion of their studies and will become leaders in government and industry in their home countries. However, all of those who study here will leave with a deep appreciation of the benefits of personal freedom and democracy.

    Education increases familiarity and understanding. Familiarity and understanding are incompatible with terrorism. Indeed, if we wish to increase international understanding, we ought to increase the opportunities for students from other countries to study in the United States. Important as this goal may be however, the most important assignment of the federal government and higher education is to ensure that students who come here to study pose absolutely no threat to American safety and security. I believe that the proposals in the legislation you have prepared and the ideas I have laid out today will — in both the short and long term — be important steps in this direction.

On behalf of:

• Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange
  
• American Association of Colleges of Nursing
  
• American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers
  
• American Association of Community Colleges
  
• American Association of Presidents of Independent Colleges and Universities
  
• American Association of State Colleges and Universities
  
• American College Personnel Association
  
• American Council on Education
  
• American Dental Education Association
  
• American Society for Engineering Education
  
• Associated Colleges of the Midwest
  
• Association of American Colleges and Universities
  
• Association of American Medical Colleges
  
• Association of American Universities
  
• Association of Chiropractic Colleges
  
• Association of Community College Trustees
  
• Association of Governing Boards
  
• Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
  
• Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design
  
• Association of International Education Administrators
  
• Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
  
• Association of Proprietary Colleges
  
• California Community Colleges
  
• California State University System
  
• Career College Association
  
• Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations
  
• Consortium of Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area
  
• Council for Advancement and Support of Education
  
• Council for Christian Colleges & Universities
  
• Council for Higher Education Accreditation
  
• Council for Higher Education of the United Church of Christ
  
• Council of Graduate Schools
  
• Council of Independent Colleges
  
• Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
  
• Lutheran Educational Conference of North America
  
• NAFSA: Association of International Educators
  
• National Association of College and University Business Officers
  
• National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
  
• National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
  
• National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
  
• National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
  
• National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
  
• The College Board
  
• University Continuing Education Association
  
• University of California System

---

Appendix 1

Higher Education's Proposals for Improving the Issuance and Tracking of Foreign Student Visas

New Responsibilities for Institutions

• Within 30 days of the end of the enrollment period at the start of each academic term, supply an electronic update to INS of the most recent data on enrolled international students covering the following items: date of commencement of studies; degree program and field of study; termination date and reason; and status (i.e. full-time or part-time).

• Require higher education institutions to report to the INS within 30 days of the start of an academic term the non-appearance of any such student indicated by the INS to have entered the country on that institution's I-20 form or who accepted an offer of admission but did not enroll.

• Require designated school officials (DSOs) to comply with any "revised responsibilities" outlined by INS or lose authority to issue I-20s.

New Responsibilities for INS

• Notify a higher education institution within 15 days of a foreign student's entry into the United States using that institution's form I-20.

• Issue a "revised statement of responsibilities" for DSOs that takes into account new reporting requirements.

Funding and Oversight

• Guarantee the rapid implementation and effective operation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) by replacing the current fee system with a permanent authorization and necessary appropriations.

• Increase the budget for consular affairs at the Department of State to provide additional staffing, improve facilities where necessary, and mandate more effective use of information technology.

• Provide sufficient funding for the expeditious implementation of an electronic arrival/departure system for all visa classifications, as mandated by Section 110 of IIRAIRA.

• Provide clarification that data disclosures to the INS regarding foreign students are not subject to restrictions under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

Special scrutiny for limited categories of applicants

• Require consular officials to conduct more extensive background checks on student visa applicants from countries on the State Department's watch list of states supporting terrorism.

• Delay the issuance of an I-20 form until after a prospective student from watch list countries has formally accepted admission.

• Mandate a 30-day delay on issuance of all student visas for individuals from countries on watch list.

---

Appendix 2