Congressional and Agency Actions by AASCU
AASCU wrote to key members of the judiciary committees about our views regarding the Foreign Student Monitoring Program in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (H.R. 3525). We stated our unequivocal and firm support for the SEVIS system and we pledged full support for the implementation of that system by the reasonable date of January 30, 2003. We assured committee members that AASCU institutions would do their part in assisting INS to implement the SEVIS system. A copy of AASCU’s letter is attached to this statement.

On June 14, 2002, AASCU wrote INS to offer our assistance to meet the legislative requirements inherent in implementing the systems and fulfilling the requirements of the Act. Several of AASCU’s recommendations are listed in this statement and suggest questions you may wish to pursue with Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials.

Today, we offer insights from the State University of West Georgia, one of AASCU’s member institutions that works closely with the Association in tracking the implementation of the legislation and regulations governing the admission, monitoring, and enrollment of international students in our public four-year colleges.

....TOP

The University of West Georgia
Ms. Sylvia Shortt is Assistant Director of Student Development and International Student Advisor for the State University of West Georgia. Ms. Shortt’s first-hand campus experiences and concerns with the implementation of the Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) database and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) are included in this statement. She particularly wanted to highlight the experience of the State University of West Georgia, a test pilot university for both the Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students (CIPRIS) and SEVIS systems.
When the State University of West Georgia agreed to become a test campus, Ms. Shortt thought it was important for universities to develop a working partnership with the INS.

create a system that would work well for both parties. She likes to point out that initially the CIPRIS system, the precursor to SEVIS, was full of bugs, but West Georgia and other pilot schools worked diligently with INS for over one year to ultimately create a system that worked well.

Further, Ms. Shortt and the other AASCU member campuses remain committed to the SEVIS project. We all believe that international students are important to the United States. They are critical to the globalization efforts of our campuses; they promote stronger ties between the United States and home nations of visitors, who often become civic and economic leaders; they help build America’s education and scientific preeminence; and they even provide revenue to offset our nation’s negative balance of payments.

AASCU colleges and universities welcome international students. Yet no president or chancellor wants terrorists on campus, or anywhere else in the country. We believe that a strong, technologically advanced visitor information system is needed. We want SEVIS to be implemented as soon as possible, and pledge our support to achieve that end. It is with this heartfelt desire to work closely with the INS as it develops a workable system that I am sharing AASCU’s views with members of the committee.

....TOP

Concerns:
AASCU and the State University of West Georgia have several serious concerns about SEVIS:

1) Our chief concern is that the INS mandates that no I-20 forms will be allowed after January 30, 2003 except a SEVIS I-20 form. It should be understood that it will take time to convert all international students to the SEVIS program.

2) Additionally, we are interested in observing how the untested batch processing system is going to operate. SEVIS 2.0 was also an untested system and it has been so problematic that we are apprehensive it will be the same story with the batch processing software. We understand from INS that on September 23, 2002, the agency will have a website available for schools and vendors to begin testing their use of batch file transmissions to provide data to SEVIS. Schools and vendors will be able to test both the format of their files and their ability to send and retrieve their files from the INS processing site to test these batch processes.

3) Further, we are concerned that the INS regulations and the SEVIS 2.0 system are still so at odds that some students are going to be punished for the software’s inability to function appropriately. For example, some current West Georgia students were kicked out of the database and their names did not survive the conversion to SEVIS 2.0 from SEVIS 1.0 or CIPRIS. These sorts of bugs within the system could harm these international students academically and keep them from receiving benefits from the INS.

4) One campus official told us that even Electronic Data Systems (EDS) employees, manufacturers of the SEVIS software, are frustrated with all the SEVIS 2.0 problems. A worker at the SEVIS Help Desk told one of our campus employees during a recent phone call that this was a flawed software system and that he was terribly discouraged. 

....TOP

Recommendations:
1) For AASCU to honor its pledge of January 30, 2003 as an achievable date for institutional compliance, INS first needs to meet its deadline of January 1, 2003 to bring up the systems that are necessary to admit, monitor, and complete enrollment of international students. We are currently aware that INS will struggle to meet its own deadline. Recent testimony by INS officials cite logistical necessities—such as entering foreign students' names into the database, and inspecting participating institutions to ensure their legitimacy—as delays that could preclude the effective use of the SEVIS system until well beyond the published INS deadline of January 1, 2003.

Further, the U. S. Department of State (State) implemented its Interim Student and Exchange Authentication System (ISEAS) to establish a temporary system for the electronic monitoring of the foreign student and exchange visitor visa issuance process until SEVIS is operational. State announced and made available on September 11, 2002 this temporary electronic authentication system to fulfill the mandate. State is requiring the use of the temporary ISEAS system for the electronic authentication of all F, J, and M visas beginning September 11, 2002. The ISEAS system was announced without much advance notice and surprised many in the higher education community.

State issued final regulations on September 18, 2002 for the implementation of ISEAS and to make its requirements identical to SEVIS requirements regarding the participation of all exchange visitor applications. State expects to continue the use of ISEAS until SEVIS is "fully" implemented. ISEAS is to facilitate the collection and transmission of students and exchange visitor applicant data by State, the INS "approved" educational and other educational institutions, and exchange visitor programs. The purpose of this process is to ensure that visa requirements are met before student or visitor visas are issued and that students and exchange visitors, in fact, enroll in the institutions and programs that formed the basis of their visa classifications.

On September 19, under the Privacy Act of 1974, the U. S. Department of Education (ED) published a Computer Matching Program notice in the Federal Register. It calls for computer matching between the Department of Education (the recipient agency), and the INS, Department of Justice (the source agency). The matching program entitled ``Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) INS/ED'' will permit ED to confirm the immigration status of alien applicants for, or recipients of, assistance as authorized by Title IV, section 484(a)(5), of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); 20 U.S.C. 1091(a)(5).

Without State, INS, and the U. S. Department of Education working closely together to coordinate these systems and, if necessary, consolidate and phase them into one common database, scarce government resources are wasted and students and institutions are left in a real bind.

2) We want to preserve the model that Ms. Shortt embraced when she worked so closely with the INS to make CIPRIS a successful system. It was a positive experience in the end. We understand that all software programs are problematic at the outset of their implementation. Therefore, we know that SEVIS will eventually be a good system. The INS should be given the time to make the SEVIS program brilliant instead of releasing a program that is shoddily thrown together and unworkable.

3) The Help desk should be given the tools to properly communicate with campuses experiencing these bugs and assist them in resolving the software problems. Additionally, we recommend there be a good technical interface between the software developer and the end user so the bugs are found and fixed in a timely manner.

4) Further, our campuses should be provided the appropriate training so they can efficiently and effectively use the system and comply with all INS regulations.

5) There should be a capacity to create manual work-arounds for the inevitable software problems therefore preventing harm to real life students.

...TOP

Suggestions and Offer of Assistance to INS:
In its June 14, 2002 letter to the INS, AASCU identified issues that concerned our members and we suggested alternatives to help INS implement SEVIS. The committee may be interested in pursuing our suggestions by asking INS officials to update you on these issues and to report what they have done to implement our recommendations.

1) Issue: Certification and Validation of SEVIS.
AASCU urges that INS move quickly to fully implement the SEVIS system and that the certification review by the Inspector General or any other impartial validating authority be made a top priority to complete the certification review post haste.

2) Issue: Certification of Colleges and Universities to Host International Students
This function, which should already be underway, could be accomplished for regionally accredited colleges and universities within a four-month period. INS needs to make this a priority. While there may be specialized, non-accredited entities (including those for whom M-1 visas are issued) that would require additional time, certification of regionally accredited colleges and universities can be done forthwith. If, for any reason, INS cannot meet the deadline, AASCU institutions will gladly step in to assist as part of the process-offering experts from our campuses who would work with INS representatives to evaluate campuses in conformity with legislative and regulatory requirements and permissible agency guidelines. (Peer review by experts is a long-established process in the Academy.)
We understand that INS is floating the idea of contracting out this responsibility. Contracting for such a task takes time, requires management oversight, and could delay the implementation. We are concerned that a contractor would not have the expertise to properly interpret the law, demonstrate an understanding of higher education, and be able to complete the job in reasonable time. If a contractor were clearly able to do all this, we would be pleased. If not, we need to move quickly to a better plan.

3) Issue: Automatic Provision for the Issuing of Visa Waivers
We favor ending the nearly automatic provision for the issuing of visa waivers. Colleges and universities recognize that waivers are at times necessary, but we do not countenance their routine issuance.

4) Issue: Revamping of the I-20 Form
We favor the revamping of the I-20 form to prevent counterfeiting and other fraudulent misrepresentations.

5) Issue: Formal Training Program for Campus Officials
We agree with the Office of the Inspector General that a formal training program for campus officials is important to insure the success of the SEVIS system. If the INS is to conduct such a training program, our colleges and universities willingly will participate. We believe that such programs can be developed and provided by late fall at the latest.

If it would be helpful, higher education representatives with expertise in training and continuing education could be called upon to assist with this process. Federal officials, however, would need to approve the program design, structure training components, and provide appropriate materials. It is immaterial who does the training as long as knowledgeable individuals do the job and it is done this calendar year.

6) Issue: Monetary Impact from SEVIS on Institutions
AASCU agrees with comments submitted by other members of the higher education community that point out the circumstance of institutions that have large nonimmigrant student populations and opt to develop in-house systems. We understand, for example, that Johns Hopkins University has estimated its initial costs at up to $500,000 (based on 4000-5000 hours of expected IT effort.) These figures do not include future training, software licenses, staffing, and other attendant maintenance costs. Costs for institutions that purchase systems will vary substantially as well - estimates ranging from $15,000 to $25,000 for start-up software, plus significant yearly maintenance and IT staffing and server costs.

Institutions that pay the costs of implementing their own systems should not be expected to pay for SEVIS twice - once for developing or purchasing their own software and systems and later for the system that is designed when SEVIS become fully operational. This outcome could be avoided it the certification process is expedited to meet the INS timeline for completion.

7) Issue: Designated School Official (DSO) Limitation
AASCU does not support limiting college and university DSOs to any fixed number. The rule proposes a continuation of five-person limit on the number of DSOs that can be employed by an institution. Such a rule does not fairly consider the diverse range of capabilities and resources among institutions. We thank Chairman McKeon, Congresswoman Mink and the entire Twenty-first Century Competitiveness Subcommittee for your leadership on the SEVIS issue and support for international students. It is an honor for AASCU to be invited to testify today and we are grateful to be included in today's hearing.

....TOP