1281 



study. '^^ Apparently, this study was never undertaken.'^^^ (The Ste- 

 vens and Vermeulen study on FAIGs, sponsored by HEW, seemed more 

 concerned about accommodathi<2: F^lGs in this country than with 

 encouraging their return home.) '-'^ 



In 1967, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturaliza- 

 tion of the Committee on the Judiciary held extensive hearings on the 

 ''International Migration of Talent and Skills." Concurrently, the 

 Subcommittee on Research and Technical Programs of the House 

 Committee on Government Operations undertook an intensive study, 

 highly commended by brain drain specialists, entitled, "The Brain 

 I')rain into the United States of Scientists, Engineers, and Physicians." 

 In 1968. the subcommittee held extensive hearings on "The Brain 

 Drain of Scientists, Engineers, and Physicians from the Developing 

 Countries to the United States." "° 



Congressional Inaction on Brain Drain. — Nothing came of these 

 congressional efforts. Concern for the issue subsequently subsided. 

 In the summer of 1968, Professor Grubel, speaking of official Govern- 

 ment response to what was being widely characterized as the alarm- 

 ing brain drain problem, expressed astonishment that "so few govern- 

 ment policies to stop this drain have been promulgated in the less 

 developed countries and practically none has reached the legislative 

 stage in the developed countries." "^ In 1970, ^Mr. Baldwin observed, 

 "Neither the executive nor the legislative branch of the U.S. Govern- 

 ment has felt it necessarv to do anvthing to reduce immicration by 

 tightening direct controls." He added in passing that, "The one con- 

 gressional subcommittee that conducted staff' studies of the problem 

 in recent years made several recommendations, not one of which 

 aroused any interest in Congress." ^^- Today, as stated above, there 

 seems to be little or no publicly expressed congressional interest in 

 brain drain beyond isolated references to the internal implications of 

 the FMG inflow."^ 



Reason for Inaction : Contradiction in National Purposes. — Con- 

 gressional interest in brain drain has thus been slight. Brain drain 



■•• Ibiii.. p. 2655S. Also Public Law 89-69S— Oct. 29. 196(1, p. 1072 (SO Stat.) Titlp III. 



'=^U.S. Conpress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Legislation on Foreign Rela- 

 tions, 93d Cong. 1st sess.. 1973, pp. 570-571. 



'2* Stevens and Vermeulen, op. clt.. Chapter 4. 



130 Professor Adams said of the Subcommittee study : "I think I can speak for all the 

 panelists in stating this consensus, whatever their views of the executive branch or the 

 State Department : I think all of them would applaud heartily the fine staff report that 

 this committee put out on the brain drain in the first session of this Congress which to 

 my knowledge is the greatest contribution made to an understanding of the problem to 

 d-itp." (Hearings, House Government (~)peratlons Committee, Brain Drain, 190,8, p. SI.) 

 Both the Senate and House publications on brain drain have been frequently cited In 

 brain drain literature. 



'31 Griihel. Reduction of the Brain Drain : Problems and Policies." p. 541. 



'^ Baldwin, op. cit.. pp. 369-370. 



• '^ In an address given before the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference on 

 N'ov. 2, 1973 entitled, "New Goals of U.S. Immigration Policy," Rep. Joshua Eilberg 

 (D-Pa.)^ Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, 

 Citizenship, and International Law, discussed current concerns of Congress. Brain drain 

 was not mentioned. Indeed, Interest in Congress and in the Administration on the entire 

 matter of immigration seems at a low ebb. In referring to needed revisions In Titles II and 

 III of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Mr. Eilberg observed : "The most 

 serious obstacle facing us in this task is no loneer the prejudice responsible for the perpetua- 

 tion of the national origins quota system for four decades, but apathy. The present Admin- 

 istration has shown very little interest in the sub.iect of immigration, and the Senate 

 appears virtually unaware of its existence. House-passed Immigration legislation died at 

 the end of the 92nd Congress, and no Senate action has been taken to date during this 

 Congress on any immigration leirlslation passed by the House, with the exception of 

 private bills." (.toshua Elilberg. "New Goals of T^S. Immigration PoUev." In ETten^^lon of 

 Remarks of Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Congressional Record, Nov. 27. 1973, pp. E7522-E7523.) 



