1670 



principal administration spokesman on the brain drain issue when it 

 was receiving the most attention in the mid-1960s — stated in an 

 official "Workshop on the International Migration of Talent and 

 Skills" held in October 1966: "If there had been no brain drain in the 

 past, we wouldn't be here, and this country wouldn't be what it is 

 today." ^^^ 



But there is a difference between enrichment of American scientific 

 and technical resources in nuclear research as a result of emigration 

 from a malevolently ascendant Germany under Hitler, or in the aero- 

 space field due to postwar transfers of talent from a defeated Germany, 

 and the expansion of resources in private medicine in the United 

 States at the expense of the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and 

 Latin America. To cite Frankel once again — this time in testimony 

 before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1968 — 



. . . the "brain drain" is an important problem because it raises, in the most 

 dramatic form, the question of the kind of world in which the United States wants 

 to hve a generation, or even a half generation from now. Over the long run we 

 cannot stand the burden of a world in which most people and most countries will 

 have inadequate intellectual resources and leadership of their own, and will have 

 to lean on us and one or two other giants for their own well-being. This is why 

 the brain drain is an important matter, and why it behooves us to seek affirmative 

 measures to alleviate it.^s^ 



Role of Congress ^^^ 



Through its constitutional powers to legislate immigration laws,- 

 Congress is the principal instrumentality for managing the inflow 

 of manpower into the United States. Congressional interest in the 

 brain drain issue over the past decade has reflected concern over 

 international as well as domestic aspects. This concern was relatively 

 intense in the period 1966-68, and resulted in hearings and studies 

 by the House Government Operations Committee and the Senate 

 Judiciary Committee. "Since then. Congressional interest has progres- 

 sively diminished to the point where today it is largely limited to 

 isolated concern for the internal aspects of the FMG inflow." 



A bill introduced by Senator Mondale in October 1966 (S. 3905, the 

 "International Brain Drain Act") was referred to the Senate Foreign 

 Relations Committee; apparently no further action was taken. In 

 1967 the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Nat- 

 uralization held and published extensive hearings on International 

 Migration oj Talent and Skills. Concurrently, the House Government 

 Operations Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs under- 

 took a study in some depth entitled, The Brain Drain into the United 

 States of Scientists, Engineers, and Physicians. In 1968 the House 

 subcommittee held extensive hearings on The Brain Drain of Scientists, 

 Engineers, and Physicians from the Developing Countries to the United 

 States. The House and Senate publications provided valuable insights 

 into the problems and have been frequently cited in other writings on 

 the brain drain. 



However, nothing came of these congressional efforts. As of the 

 date of the study (September 1974), overall congressional interest in 

 the issue of the brain drain would have to be characterized as slight. 



2«8 Whelan, Brain Drain, vol. II, p. 1073. 



269 Ibid., pp. 1298-1299. 



260 Most of this section is a condensation of a section in the basic study entitled "Congressional Involve- 

 ment in the Brain Drain Issue"— i6td., pp. 1280-1282. The concluding part on foreign medical graduates 

 (FMGs) is based on a discussion of "Congressional and Administrative Views on FMGs," pp. 1242-1246. 



