Mr. DIGGS. We might include it in the record.

6

Why has the administration not sought authority to fulfill terms of the agreement on an international energy program by submitting this matter as a treaty, subject to ratification, of course, by the Senate? In the absence of a treaty ratification process, isn't the implication of any congressional approval of title 13, that U.S. participation in the agreement on such a program is, in effect, being ratified outside the formal process of treaty ratification?

Mr. CONANT. Mr. Chairman, I should defer to legal advice from the State Department in answering that. Of course, I could give you my own personal impression of a couple of aspects of this. One is the appalling complexity of the legislative and constitutional processes among the other member states.

There is a need for urgency required on the part of all member states which are seeking ways of taking early action. At the same time we fully realize that, in our case as in the others, for the implementation of this we would have to come back to the Congress.

Mr. DIGGS. We will leave the record open for a fuller reply from your agency on that.

[The information requested follows:]

AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, NOT A TREATY

The choice between the two alternative legal vehicles was influenced by what our partners could do. Some of the original members of the negotiating group informed us that ratification of a treaty would require up to four years-clearly too long in an emergency when there is a high premium on immediate action. With the group opting for what in our practice is termed an executive agreement, it seemed to us inappropriate to present the agreement as a treaty.

More than this, we felt that we were and are on sound constitutional ground in agreeing to conclude an executive agreement rather than a treaty for two reasons: First, much of the Agreement on an International Energy Program is authorized by legislation currently in force. Second, we have had and have every intention of seeking the fullest concurrence of the Congress by the means of the adoption of implementing authority, as we now do in the legislation on whose behalf we are testifying today.

Mr. DIGGS. What has been the reaction within the executive branch by your Agency to the Attorney General's opinion on the 28th of March regarding the Presidential request to allow certain U.S. oil companies to consult and cooperate with the Agency with a waiver of antitrust laws??

Mr. BELL. The Attorney General's approval there was of the joint agreement which we initiated pursuant to section 708 in order to provide antitrust protection for companies which were involved in the initial planning of measures which might be undertaken in an emergency. We actively sought his approval of that agreement and were gratified to have that approval.

Subsequent to the approval the Industry Advisory Board of the IEA-this is an industry advisory group to the International Energy Agency has met in Paris in its first meeting and it has established a set of three subcommittees to deal with various charges that have been given to it by the IEA, so that there is now active planning within the terms of the voluntary agreement approved by the Attorney General by the various companies involved in international operations.

See appendix at p. 81.

See the opinion in the appendix at p. 57.

Mr. Dices. Wel!, as you know, counsel, this opinion provided approval with respect to parent companies.

Mr. BELL. Yes.

Mr. Dices. But only provided approval for their designated affiliates for 30 days from March 25. the date of the letter.

Mr. BELL. That is correct.

Mr. Dices. And during that period, which has now expired. FEA was directed. after reinvestigation of each such designated affiliate, to furnish the Attorney General with the following information regarding each affiliate: (1) the written assurance that to the best of their information and belief there are substantial grounds to believe that the affiliates participation is reasonably necessary to operations under the agreement as presently foreseen, and (2) information on ownership or control of the affiliate by the parent company.

Our questions are, what are the status and the results of your reinvestigation? Has the Attorney General yet advised which affiliates he is going to approve? If so, we would like to see that list for the record.

Mr. BELL. Surely.

Mr. Dicos. And if not, when can his opinion be expected?

Mr. BELL. May I set out the steps that FEA has taken to carry out those conditions?

Mr. DIGGS. Go ahead.

Mr. BELL. Pursuant to those statements we asked each company which had designated affiliates to provide us with additional information so that we could make further judgments concerning the nature of the particular affiliates' activities, how it might be related to IEP activity and the nature of the ownership interest by the parent company. We also went further than the Attorney General's list to ask the companies not include as designated affiliates, any companies which were solely engaged in domestic activity, to make it clear that the voluntary agreement was not intended to cover activity within the United States.

As a result of that letter a number of companies have replied back to us providing the required information which we have examined. In some cases they have not asked to have approved the full list of affiliates which they originally gave to the Attorney General. In other cases they have asked to have additional affiliates designated. For those companies which have replied to us and which we have been able to examine, we are forwarding to the Attorney General the information which he has requested and our own findings with regard to this.

We will be glad to supply for the record our letters and the information to the Attorney General. I would note that where additional affiliates have been designated, we are going through the full statutory process with notice to the Federal Trade Commission and the Attorney General as we did the original approvals,

Mr. DIGGS. We will leave the record open at this point for that purpose. I might note that we would hope to publish the proceedings of this hearing and any related hearings within a 2-week period. So we wish you would move expeditiously to provide that information.

The response to this question appears in the appendix at p. 100.

We would also like to have you submit for the record the following information: (1) Data on U.S. oil imports to date by country and by type; that is, its crude or refined petroleum. Also, provide the totals for the past 5 years; and (2) oil imports of EEC countries to date by country and type for the past 5 years.

[The tables supplied by the FEA follow:]