stand the energy supply system. The implication is that energy policy ought to be made by energy industries.

Given the disastrous shortages we face this winter, no Member of Congress could advocate such an abrogation of responsibility. We have to act on the basis of the best information available from Government, industry, and public sources.

Mr. President, a prime example of the deficiencies in our access to critical energy information is the apparent rapid growth in our dependence on Arab sources of petroleum during the past year. According to the Bureau of Mines, direct dependence on Arab crude oil and products averaged some 0.560 million barrels per day during 1972. This represented 3.4 percent of the total U.S. consumption during 1972 of 16.5 million barrels per day.

Early in the fall, as the Mideast war began, the best data available from the Bureau described imports for the second quarter of 1973 and showed a direct dependence on Arab sources of 0.910 million barrels per day, or approximately 5.3 percent of the 17.0 million barrels per day U.S. consumption. The important deficiencies in this data are:

First, it is not timely. We now know from analyzing raw census figures, that direct dependence on Arab imports for September 1973 was over 1.2 million barrels per day-approximately a third larger than in the second quarter-and over 7 percent of consumption.

Second. It is not complete. There is no way to use available data to derive the significant indirect dependence on Arab sources through imports of products from refineries abroad which use Arab crude. Even though these refineries are run either by U.S.-based companies or companies which do significant business in the United States, our Government does not monitor, on a continuous basis, the flow of petroleum through them to the United States. We now know that this indirect dependence in September was probably at least 1.2 million barrels per day, increasing our dependence on Arab sources at that time to over 2.4 million barrels per day, or almost 14 percent of consumption. Thus, when the war broke out in the Middle East, the very critical information relating to U.S. dependence on Arab oil was greatly in error. This situation led to the escalating estimates offered by the administration during October:

On October 12, White House Aide Charles Di Bona estimated dependence at 1.2 million barrels per day.

On October 20, the estimate was raised to 1.6 million barrels per day.

On October 24, it went to 2.0 million barrels per day, and on October 30 to 2.5 million barrels per day.

Now, in the middle of winter when demand for petroleum is at its highest, the amount of oil we might have received from Arab sources could undoubltedly be higher still. But the important point is that the administration and the Congress should have been aware of the petoleum situation when the war broke out. The fact is that important information was simply not available, and the information which was available existed only in unorganized bits scattered in different Federal offices.

The Congress cannot allow energy policymakers to render their decisions and recommendations on anything less than the most complete and timely information. Similarly, Congress cannot allow energy policymakers to flounder in a seemingly endless sea of incoherent and contradictory numbers, graphs, charts, and diagrams. The bill which the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Nelson) is introducing today will give Congress the opportunity to solve both of these problems.

Beyond the present crisis, it is the considered opinion of nearly all those who work in this area that energy scarcity, over long term, will impose continuing and important responsibilities on the Congress for the management of energy policy. Any attempt to carry out these responsibilities without the kind of fundamental information which the Bureau of Energy Information would provide will place the Congress in an impossible situation. This legislation is an essential first step in equipping Congress and the executive branch with the tools which they urgently need to formulate and carry out public policy with respect to energy resources and supply.

To obtain an adequate understanding of the flow of energy through the U.S. economy, statistical information is required at several junctures in the system. In the case of petroleum, for example, we need to know, among other things, the extent and location of existing petroleum reserves, the potentials for

achieving various rates of extraction, the rate of flow of crude oil from the wells to the refineries by pipeline or by tanker, the refinery throughput capacities, and the various product yield ranges. To understand the distribution of petroleum products, we have to know transport capabilities and stock levels and the structure of the transportation network which supplies fuel to various

users.

At the consumption end, we should know who the big users of fuels are, both on an individual level and in terms of significant consuming sectors. Additionally, we need to know the levels of efficiency with which fuels are converted and the potential for substitution of alternate fuels by these users.

In connection with each point at which we collect information on the basic operation of the supply system, information about operating costs, environmental costs, and profit levels for existing and alternate technologies are essential if we are to understand how the system works and how policy should be written to govern it. We need all this information, and we need it in an organized and usable form available at a central location in the Federal Government.

A second vital area in which we must expand our collection of energy information is in estimating the resources owned by the Federal Government in the public lands. These are truly national resources, belonging to the people of the United States. They will undoubtedly be developed, for they provide the only possibilities for significantly increasing our domestic energy supplies. Unless the Congress and the executive branch have adequate knowledge as to the extent of these resources, it will be impossible to plan adequately for the future and to fix reasonable compensation in the transactions with the private companies which must do the developing. If we are to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources significantly over the coming years, the resources owned now by the people of the United States will be an extremely important ingredient in our mix of new supplies. We must begin the inventory of these resources to determine the extent of the contribution they can make.

Mr. President, this bill will go a long way toward filling what, in some instances, is an information void, and in other instances is unintelligible information overkill. The bill being introduced today is an expanded version of an amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) last summer during the debate on S. 1081. At that time, I respectfully requested that the Senator withdraw his amendment, in hopes that we could work together and draft a more comprehensive bill and begin hearings on it before the end of the year. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. NELSON) graciously honored my request and withdrew his amendment in light of this understanding.

The bill introduced today fairly represents, I believe, a melding together of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin with the expanded format that I felt was necessary to deal effectively with the problems posed by inadequate energy information.

Put in simplest terms, Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the improved collection, organization, coordination, and dissemination of energy information by a National Energy Information System. This system is to be operated and maintained by a census-like Bureau of Energy Information established within the Department of Commerce. The Bureau will have the authority to collect and coordinate energy information from the public domaininformation collected now by some 64 Federal agencies and commissions-and essential information available only from private industry and/or its trade associations. The Bureau, like the Census, is intended to collect and organize energy information in an atmosphere of strict impartiality, with ample protection for reasonable competitive equities and national security. In particular, the primary function of the Bureau will be the collection of statistical information which can then be used by Congress, Federal agencies, and commissions in preparing analyses essential to the formation of policy.

The information collected will be stored in three libraries: the public library, the confidential library, and the secret library. The reason for such a system. Mr. President, is to insure that while the public will be guaranteed access to the vast majority of the information collected by the Bureau, reasonable competitive equities and national security will not be adversely affected and can be protected by placing "senstitive information" in either of the latter two libraries.

In addition to the information-collecting activities of the Bureau, the bill provides for a series of studies to be undertaken by the Bureau in an eort to improve the quality of the energy information collected and improve the coordination between the many agencies and institutions which now gather and report energy information.

Mr. President, a bill of this scope and complexity is, admittedly, very difficult to draft. It is my hope that when hearings are held on this bill in January, my colleagues in the Senate will offer constructive suggestions and comments that will improve this legislation. It is also my sincere hope, Mr. President, that my colleagues in the Senate share my sense of need and urgency for this bill. I feel that the enactment of this legislation is necessary if the Congress and the public are to understand the energy supply system, and have the capability of directing its operations toward the enhancement of the public good.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Senator Nelson, when the head of the Federal Energy Office, Mr. Simon, was here, I asked him about your bill and he expressed some hesitancy about it, he indicated that he favored the principle of the bill but he recognized that there were some problems involved. At the time the bill was being discussed apparently he indicated some reluctance to support it.

What is the reason for Mr. Simon's reluctance and on what points do you differ?

Senator NELSON. Well, I haven't seen his testimony. I would assume he might disagree with the bill on the question of how much public disclosure there should be of reserves that a company has; that is, disclosure by name of the company. I think that that is probably the issue. I am assuming that no one could reasonably defend the proposition that the Government should not know what the reserves

are.

Now, if it were the position of Mr. Simon that in fact the Government should not have the right to require sworn statements from companies and should not have the right and the capacity with its own geologists to examine the estimates and the methodology of estimating reserves of a particular company, I would disagree with him. I would assume that nobody would want to be in the position of saying the Government should not be able to do that, on the fundamental principle that we are dealing with a resource upon which the survival of our system depends. Surely you cannot leave it up to the private sector to decide what the Government will know about the resources that will decide whether or not the whole economic, social, cultural, industrial system collapses.

If we had had this information and had been established to report it and bring it to the public attention some years ago, as many resource people were advocating, we would not be in the situation we are in today. In fact, if we had had this information and this legislation 20 years ago, the Research and Development Act authored by Senator Jackson and recently passed by the Senate very quickly, calling for the expenditure of $2 billion a year in R. & D., would certainly have passed no later than 1955 instead of 1973. The warnings had been coming prior to 1955 that we were going to run into an energy crunch, and if we had had the kind of information the Energy Information bill would provide us, and if it had been brought to the attention of the Congress on a formalized basis, then we would have passed something like the Jackson R. & D. legisla

tion 15 years earlier than we did. We would have been in the field of R. & D. on coal liquefaction, gasification, geothermal energy, research, solar energy research, a whole number of fields. We would have been active for the past 15 years because, if the public had understood and Congress had understood what we were running into, we would have acted then instead of now.

So I am assuming that nobody will be appearing here to say that the Government of the United Sates is not entitled to know what our resources are, even on our own public lands, offshore or elsewhere.

So I think probably the issue with Mr. Simon most likely revolve around the question of how much of this information should be disclosed to the public by name of the company. In other words, when the Government finds out that Exxon has a certain number of millions or hundreds of millions of barrels of oil reserves underground, or has so much gas underground, should they identify it publicly?

I don't think it makes any difference to the company. I think it is a phoney issue. I think that Standard Oil of New Jersey knows as much about Exxon reserves as Exxon does and I think Exxon knows as much about Standard Oil of New Jersey. After all, all you have to do is watch the interchange of personnel between the two compa

nies.

General Motors won't tell us how much it costs to build a car, or how much it costs for the metal or how much it costs for the labor, but General Motors executive and engineers are being hired by Ford and Chrysler each year, and vice versa, and they do not leave behind them the knowledge they gained when they were there. And the same is true in the oil companies. I doubt very much whether the issue is really an issue of proprietary right for competitive reasons between the competing companies. I think the real reason is they do not want the public to know.

In any event, I would think that would be the issue mainly in dispute. But certainly there can be no dispute about the public and the country knowing how much reserves we have of gas and oil and coal and any other energy source.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Has there been any representation made to you as to what specific damage, what harm, will be done to the companies if this information on reserves, for example, is disclosed or this information on costs is disclosed?

Senator NELSON. Not recently, but I think it is the traditional, classic proprietary right argument, in which industry says: "We have a proprietary right here to this information and it should not be disclosed because it will adversely affect us with our competitors."

Chairman PROXMIRE. In any event, you will provide in your bill if there were any adverse effect on the companies, if that could be shown, and if disclosure of the information were not essential to the national interest, then it could be classified either as confidential, in which case it would be available only to certain government officials, or secret, in which case it would be available only to a few government officials who would have to have it in order to compile data or in order to act?

Senator NELSON. Yes; if it is really a question of proprietary right, which would affect their competitive position, and if there is

no conflict in the public interest, then it would be classified and not made public.

Chairman PROXMIRE. I would assume that the reason for their objection would be that they would be concerned that the public interest might suggest that if information should be disclosed that might be damaging to their competitive position, is that a possibility?

Senator NELSON. I assume that that is what they are talking about.

I want to repeat, however, that none of the information about how much of any resource we have, that is, the question of the total amount, none of that should be withheld from the Government or the public. They might have some argument for saying that is all right but don't identify how much we have by comapny name. That is an issue on which we will have to take some rather extensive testimony. But the heart of the matter is to find out how much we have got and to have the public know how much we have got, and in those areas where there may be a valid question of a proprietary right, to allow whatever that information is, and I cannot imagine exactly what it is, not to be made public by company name.

Chairman PROXMIRE. I have some additional written questions for the record1 but I also have one or two I would like to ask now.

Your bill, as I understand it, requires the Interior Department to gather data about the reserves and resources on public lands, including making on-site surveys. I am talking about public lands. What authority does the Interior Department have to do this and to what extent is that authority being utilized?

Senator NELSON. Well, counsel says that on the public lands they may have authority now, but mostly don't use it, and on private lands, they don't have the authority.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Do you agree that with respect to the public domain the Government should have its own exploratory and analytical capacity for determining the extent and quantity of resources, it should not have to rely on private industry for knowledge in this area on its domain?

Senator NELSON. I think the Government should have it on both the public domain and private domain.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Finally, as I understand your bill, it would not take current functions away from existing major statistical agencies, the Bureau of Labor Statistics would continue to gather statistics on prices and employment in energy industry, the SEC would continue to gather the corporate business information it does now, however, this information would be made available to the Energy Information Bureau and added to their public libraries. Is that the case?

Senator NELSON. Yes, sir.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Congressman Conable.

1 See response of Senator Nelson to additional written questions posed by Chairman Proxmire, beginning on p. 234.