may look at this differently than I, do but I see that as simply the 

 flourish of a pen throwing away $50 billion dollars. And our program for 

 insulating low-income programs only wanted half that amount. Only half 

 the af^ount that was totally thrown out in a compromise that we sought 

 with the windfall profits tax. So I would sum up the federal problem as 

 this: we are putting $1 billion into solar and energy conservation next 

 year, we're putting $20 billion into synfuels and we're putting $157 billion 

 into the military. One billion to $20 billion to $157 billion. Now that is 

 going to generate or perpetuate a predictably vicious circle and that is 

 that the less we spend on becoming dependent or independent with 

 renewable resources at home, the more we're going to be dependent on the 

 precarious Persian Gulf countries for importing more and more at greater 

 and greater expense. I mean that is very easy to see. 



So we have a number of choices to take. The following choices that I 

 outline come from a Harvard Business School Study and they talk about 

 the possibility of breaking up the energy monopolies and that, of course, 

 is on the national agenda right now. One one hand we see the proponents 

 saying that this will lead to greater competition and the opponents say 

 "Yes, but it will be less efficient." Both statements are probably correct. 

 And really it dosen't make any difference as far as we're concerned or as 

 far as I'm concerned because there is no evidence anywhere that this is 

 going to lead to any greater domestic supplies. I mean it may change 

 around the system of how it is procured, but it dosen't change the amount 

 that we get out of it at all. Then there's the option of oil shale, and 

 according to this study, we would make a $1 billion investment over a 

 decade of development, taking more water than this country has to spare 

 and what we come up with as a result is about 100,000 barrels a day 

 equivalent. That's not even near as much as the energy conservation 

 program that takes only five years and insulates poor people's homes. So 

 go on from there and they discuss the possibilities of decontrol and the 

 hope that this would lead to enhanced recovery of supplies. But the best 

 current estimates of both industry and government is that this would yield 

 an additional one million barrels a day. Considering that we import almost 

 ten, it's not to be sneezed at but, you know, it's not all that great 

 either. When they talk about the possibility of nuclear development and 

 that is, of course, of interest to the West because we are the new-found 

 bonanza-- but according to one utility's nuclear investment advisor, and 

 this is a direct quote, "To rely on nuclear fission as the primary source of 

 our stationary energy supplies will constitute economic lunacy on a scale 

 unparalleled in recorded history." "Economic lunacy" .. .and he says that 

 this may lead to the economic Waterloo of the United States. It's a cost 

 problem more than anything else. Well, those are some of the choices they 

 discuss and I'd just like to throw out a few other choices because the 

 choices are there. 



There are some brothers in the state of Minnesota named Zethmer that 

 have a 50-cow dairy have 500 acres that they work on. They have built 

 themselves a small alcohol still out of an old oil tank and an automobile 

 radiator. They take corn that they raise off their land and they heat it 

 with solar heat. They convert the starch to sugar in that process. They 

 ferment the result with yeast and they separate the liquid and they distill 

 it with a wood fire in their back shed and they take the left-over, high 



