Advocate Summary

Issue:  Student Visas & Laboratory Security
Advocate:  Office of Science and Technology Policy – Jim Griffin
Date of Interview: 8/7/02

Basic Background
We got involved, with regards to international students it was really, well after the attacks obviously, we were very active in helping out with homeland security issues, including many things related to the September 11th attacks and then the subsequent Anthrax letters and things of that nature. But very specifically in late October, Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 2 came out HSPD2, and that is available on the White House webpage, section 3 of that specifically addressed international students, and the title I think was Ending the Abuse of Student Visas, with the concern being of course, that students were coming over and some how potentially gaining knowledge that could either be harmful to the United States while they were here, or going back with it. At that same time there was proposed legislation from Senator Feinstein of California that proposed a sixty day moratorium on all international students visa issuance. The problem with that being there a literally some science areas were half of the post doctoral students are international so it could have a tremendously negative impact on what we call the science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or stem fields.  So we were very concerned about hearing that and of course that did not happen, but it raised an awareness for us that we needed to become very active on this issue so that we could work toward a balance between scientific openness and exchange and kind of the global nature of the stem workforce and still enhancing homeland security because we are obviously for that as well. The HSPD2 specifically directed State and Justice to address these concerns about international students. 

The IPASS would have on it representatives of the different science agencies as well as the intelligence, counter-intelligence and law enforcement, the idea being having the expertise available to look a someone coming in to study and being able to say yeah, that’s fine there’s no questions or well, maybe we need more information or we really need to think about this because if this person goes in and does graduate work in this area it would allow them to go back to their own country and create their own lab, and there are concerns about that, and then also the intel, and counter-intel bring to the table what countries or what terrorist organizations are seeking that information, so for example it could be missile technology that could be done with guidance systems or things of that nature, that we prohibit people from selling those to those countries so what we might have is someone wants to come over here to learn how to build them so that they can go back and build them, so that’s the kind of thing we would try to prevent as well.

Prior Activity on the Issue 
None mentioned.

Advocacy Activities Undertaken
What we did was we had a series of briefings individually with Justice and with State. We had concerns about how actively they were responding to the presidential directive and the fact that – and this is traditionally the case – they were not communicating with each other. What we did was we called an interagency working group together and in that we had not only State and Justice and by we, I should specify, this is OSTP as well as the office of Homeland Security, so not only State and Justice but also the major science agencies NIH, NSF, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, Commerce and others, but also the intelligence, counter-intelligence and law enforcement agencies, CIA, FBI, NSA etc. with the idea being – what do we need to do in this area to provide additional safeguards while at the same time again, providing that balance, not totally shutting things off. What we have come up with and this was announced in the press a few months back, and there were a number of articles on it, to do an Interagency Panel on Advanced Safety and Security or IPASS that would be an enhanced mechanism to provide screening for advanced students, graduates, post-docs, visiting scholars coming in to study sensitive areas of science especially those working with WMD – weapons of mass destruction – potential and who are also coming in to study things that are both sensitive and uniquely available in the United States. With the idea being that most things that are taught at the undergraduate level are so widely available worldwide on the internet, that trying to restrict that is just not very productive, but there are opportunities in the United States for scientists and people in these field that really is unique in the United States and that there is a craft knowledge that people gain access to by doing graduate work and beyond that you could not get, that would not necessarily be classified work, but at the same time is still sensitive enough that we may want to restrict access to certain individuals. So that is the path that we are taking, we are currently still in the process of implementing that with an executive order.  We were very much the advocates for balance so – that’s been our key word – so yes, we need to enhance homeland security but the example we would use, a moratorium on all international students, it would be like saying you are going to have a moratorium for six months on oil from the Middle East, you could do that but the shock that it would have to the economy and the long term implications would be detrimental, including potentially to homeland security. What you don’t want to do is unintended consequences by shutting off these people who really in some ways are enhancing homeland security, you would not want to do that. And the Hill has been very responsive, very supportive of these actions. 

What we did was we vetted this plan through the Office of Homeland Security, they have a Homeland Security Council, analogous to the National Security Council, they have meetings where you have different levels of people so there is the deputies meeting, and then the principles meetings, and that would be literally the heads of the different agencies and departments. In that vetting process, at that time there was a lot of concern and conjecture about what might happen in response to the HSPD2, people were writing articles that international students would no longer be able to come here and study science, and all sorts of you know really scary things, especially if you are here on a visa or you were thinking of applying. So what we did was we got permission to do a rollout, to say this is what we’re going to do with concept we don’t have an executive order yet, but we want to basically allay some of these anxieties, so when we did that we did briefings on the Hill with the House and Senate staff, we held a briefing specifically with the university representative groups, like ACE and things of that nature and we held a briefing for the major scientific associations, and when you look back at the articles, I’m quoted in some of them, Dr. Marburger is quoted in some of them, and we had a very good response. People really saw this as being a reasonable response to what the president called for and in some ways again, would hopefully achieve the type of balance we’re striving for. 

OSTP has been involved in determining select agents and which foreign nationals are allowed to have access to those agents. Another staff member – Rachel Levinson – has been more involved on that than I have but OSTP very much so was involved in the development of those regulations. 

Future Advocacy Activities Planned
[Will be implementing IPASS and working on the development of a Department of Homeland Security]

Key Congressional Contact(s)/Champions
Representative Boehlert was supportive of the push for balance on the Science committee in the House, he was very receptive in the Senate we met with so many staffers from different committees that I couldn’t specify one, but they in general were very supportive. 

Targets of Direct Lobbying
None mentioned.

Targets of Grassroots Lobbying
Not applicable.

Coalition Partners: Names/Participants
[Worked with university groups and science associations but they did not quite behave as coalition partners]

Other Participants in the Issue Debate
So what we did was we got permission to do a rollout, to say this is what we’re going to do with concept we don’t have an executive order yet, but we want to basically allay some of these anxieties, so when we did that we did briefings on the Hill with the House and Senate staff, we held a briefing specifically with the university representative groups, like ACE and things of that nature and we held a briefing for the major scientific associations,

-INS
- State Department
- Justice Department 

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence
We were very much the advocates for balance so – that’s been our key word – so yes, we need to enhance homeland security but the example we would use, a moratorium on all international students, it would be like saying you are going to have a moratorium for six months on oil from the Middle East, you could do that but the shock that it would have to the economy and the long term implications would be detrimental, including potentially to homeland security. What you don’t want to do is unintended consequences by shutting off these people who really in some ways are enhancing homeland security, you would not want to do that.

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence
None mentioned.

Targeted Arguments, Targets, and Evidence
None mentioned.

Nature of the Opposition
No, I think I can honestly say no, we had good consistent and bi-partisan support. 

I think the main concern people have had, well two parts. One part was people had some concerns about Justice and State working together, because traditionally you had the State department, first the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, had to issue an I-20 that would basically be the permission that someone could apply for a visa so that gets issued out, but then they have to apply for the visa with the State Department, but once they get to the boarder then it’s back to the INS again to actually get in, so people had real concerns about how well those two would actually work together and how the IPASS would really be able to gel with that system. We’ve worked very well with Justice and State, now, between when we did all this original announcement and now, we’ve gone from, only having an Office of Homeland Security to now of course having a department of Homeland security, it is very likely that the IPASS when the new department is created would actually reside within the new department because a lot of the visa authority area actually being concentrated there because of border security and all of those reasons. So I think that has actually taken away a lot of the concerns people had because there is this consolidation in the two versions of DHS that are currently being considered but we don’t know what that is eventually going to look like, and we are going to be implementing it under the current system, with both State and Justice co-chairing it. 

Ubiquitous Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition 
Not applicable.

Secondary Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition
Not applicable.

Targeted Argument(s) and Evidence Articulated by the Opposition (and Targets)
Not applicable.

Described as a Partisan Issue
No.

Venue(s) of Activity
House
Senate
State Department
Justice Department
White House

Action Pending or Taken by Relevant Decision Makers
The IPASS is still being implemented, USA Patriot Act and the Border Security acts passed other anti-terrorism legislation along with the legislation concerning the Department of Homeland Security have yet to be voted on. 

Policy Objective(s) and Support for/Opposition to the Status Quo
Working to ensure balance in federal policy toward student visas and laboratory security.

Advocate’s Experience: Tenure in Current Job/Previous Experience
Did not obtain.

Reliance on Research: In-House/External (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Number of Individuals Involved in Advocacy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Units in Organization Involved in Public Affairs/Policy (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Advocate’s Outstanding Skills/Assets (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Type of Membership: None, Institutions, Individuals, Both (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Membership Size (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Organizational Age (Code for Organizational Advocates Only)

Miscellaneous