[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 69 (Wednesday, May 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S5226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ACADEMIC EXCHANGE

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in early April of 2003, a professor of 
engineering at United Arab Emirates University contacted an American 
professor at the Worcester, MA, Polytechnic Institute about spending 
the summer in Worcester as a visiting professor. By late May his visit 
had been arranged--he would come for the months of July and August, the 
time when he was not teaching in the UAE, and they would collaborate on 
research on axiomatic design and fractal analysis of manufactured 
surfaces.
  On June 7 the UAE professor applied for a nonimmigrant visa for June 
27--August 26. Apart from being called back to the consulate for 
fingerprinting on June 22 and told that he would receive an answer in 
the next 2 to 3 weeks, he heard nothing in response to his inquiries 
other than a reminder to check his visa application status on the 
embassy Web site. On August 9, with still no sign of his record on the 
Web site and the beginning of his fall semester approaching, he 
cancelled his plans and stayed at home in the UAE.
  Without any information about the reason for the delay it is 
impossible to determine whether it was due to some legitimate concern 
or more likely the result of a bureaucratic logjam. But at a minimum, 
the professor should have received a response informing him of the 
status of his application before June 27. Instead, he and his American 
colleague were left in the dark to wonder, and had no choice but to 
cancel their research plans which would have been mutually beneficial, 
as well as for their students.
  This is one incident; however, it is illustrative of the larger 
problem of foreign scholars and teachers being denied entry into the 
United States not because of travel bans, but because of delays and 
inefficiencies in the visa application process, particularly in 
geographical regions of concern for the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Transnational academic collaboration is, if not politically blind, 
politically myopic. Diplomats sit across from each other, even when 
meeting in friendship, to resolve differences. To study, the parties 
sit on the same side of the table and, irrespective of national, 
religious, ethnic or political backgrounds, focus on what they have in 
common. Some fields of study are so universal that they transcend 
language--mathematics does not need a common tongue for collaboration 
to happen.
  This is in no way meant to disparage diplomacy, which has been and 
will continue to be the keystone of how governments interact. It 
emphasizes differences because it addresses them--academic 
collaboration will never negotiate an arms reduction treaty. But 
neither should we be limited by thinking that diplomacy is the only way 
of working towards understanding between two societies.
  Nor is this type of academic exchange limited to technical or 
scientific work. I am reminded of when, after Robert Frost's visit to 
the Soviet Union in 1962, Siberian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote to 
him ``I have read your poems again and again today, and I am glad you 
live on Earth.'' I picture Frost and Yevtushenko talking about the 
rural beauties of their homeland, Frost of Ripton, VT and Yevtushenko 
of Stantsiya Zima, Siberia.
  It is not only relations that we damage and the resentment we create 
by limiting these partnerships. The United States and the world also 
lose the body of scholarship that would have been produced. In no 
academic discipline is anyone so bold as to suggest that knowledge lies 
only on one side of a fence or of an ocean.
  To the foreign scholars who would study and do research here, I would 
say that in the post-9/11 world our immigration laws and procedures 
have indeed become more stringent, burdensome and time consuming. But 
do not interpret that as a sign that you are not welcome or that your 
presence is not desired. To the contrary, it is valuable--indispensable 
to you, to us and to the rest of the world.
  It is also undeniable that during the Bush administration some of the 
immigration laws and regulations, enacted in haste to respond to 9/11, 
crossed the line between keeping a vigilant watch over our borders and 
creating unnecessary and illogical barriers to entry for those who pose 
no danger. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of 
State deserve credit for their efforts to keep our borders secure, but 
I also urge them to continually review their policies and procedures to 
make sure they are keeping out those who need to be kept out, but 
facilitating the entry of those whose presence we want and need.
  The case of the UAE professor is, again, one example. But it did not 
only inconvenience the two professors; such cases can have a 
compounding, ripple effect as family members, friends and colleagues 
conclude that it is pointless, and potentially humiliating, to apply 
for a visa to study, teach or conduct academic research in the United 
States. At a time when we should be doing everything possible to 
rebuild our image abroad, particularly in predominantly Muslim 
countries, this is not the message we should be sending.
  As the Departments of Homeland Security, State and Justice continue 
to review their policies they should look closely at these issues. If 
existing laws regarding who and what constitute legitimate security 
risks need to be clarified, then the administration should come to 
Congress with a recommendation. If the problem is a lack of staff or 
other resources to process visa applications in a timely manner, we can 
allocate the funds necessary to ensure that legitimate visa applicants 
get the prompt and fair consideration they are due. But whatever the 
cause of the problem, it needs to be fixed.

                          ____________________