119 



formalism of extension of a visa beyond 3 years that turns out to 

 be fairly complicated. Up to 3 years is fairly straightforward, and 

 beyond that is more complicated. 



We had a foreign visitor, a very highly regarded scientist, who 

 happened to be from an Eastern Bloc country. His hosts were very 

 anxious to extend the visa, and it is actually an activity that is 

 underway right now. We are trying to work through a complicated 

 series of actions there. 



We are trying, incidentally, as part of the activities in the Inter- 

 national Energy Agency, to pull together a compilation of adminis- 

 trative obstacles that we face and other countries face, and this 

 issue is also being addressed in the Summit process. I think that 

 there may one day be some recommendations for significant 

 changes in a couple of areas where we do have problems. 



Mr. FuQUA. From an administrative standpoint or a policy stand- 

 point, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of having, 

 say, one single U.S. agency to provide the management and over- 

 sight and the funding of international science activities? Or should 

 it continue on a — I am not sure if piecemeal is the best term — but 

 agency by agency, I guess, is a better phrase? Most of the agencies, 

 from NASA, NSF, DOE, just to name a few, are involved in inter- 

 national programs. Should there be a coordination from, say, OSTP 

 or some other agency? 



Dr. Jaffe. Well, let me try to answer pieces of this. I think there 

 are certainly elements which would benefit from coordination, 

 more so than others. 



Mr. FuQUA. I don't want to get your blood pressure up, but 

 maybe even the State Department. 



Dr. Jaffe. No, no. Let me give you an example of one that 

 turned out to be a recent problem. It involved dealing with the 

 People's Republic of China, and it turned out that the People's Re- 

 public of China had just recently instituted or brought into being 

 patent policies, and they were dealing with the Department of 

 Energy; they were dealing with NASA; they were dealing with 

 NSF. It does, indeed, turn out that these three organizations, and 

 some of the others that they dealt with, have slightly different 

 patent provisions. 



They had agreed on a set of terms with one of these agencies 

 ^vhich were not acceptable to us, because we have different perspec- 

 tives. We ended up discussing this matter for about a year, and I 

 think, to the credit -of the State Department— and I don't often 

 compliment them this way— but to the credit of the State Depart- 

 nient, they insisted on holding out for the most stringent set of con- 

 ditions, which were akin to ours — we were ready to give in because 

 we were anxious to proceed — and we eventually got an agreement 

 and a consistent approach. 



Now, there is nothing in our Agency's procedures that says that 

 our patent provisions, intellectual property provisions, should be 

 the same as those of NSF or NASA; yet there is some virtue, I 

 think, in an area like this, from the standpoint of the other party, 

 to try to present the United States in a consistent framework. 



Now, I will give you a picture on the other side. We have inter- 

 nally from time to time said, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could 

 structure our cooperation so that we can trade technology in one 



