Live Online Chat with Bob Inglis - Wednesday & Thursday Jan. 31 & Feb. 1 (Noon to 1 p.m.)

Iraq. Immigration. Health Care. Hydrogen. Energy Security.

Talk back today in an on-line chat.

Inglis will answer as many questions as time permits from noon to 1 p.m. You can pre-submit your questions by clicking “Submit a Question” link below. Once we begin the chat, the page will automatically refresh every 60 seconds.

Please be sure to include your name and location. Remember to keep it clean because the chat moderator won’t post anything that’s defamatory or vulgar. Also, please limit your question to approximately 40-50 words so we can get as many questions in during the time as possible.

Here’s your chance to talk back. Let’s chat.

Note: Please refresh your page every few minutes because our automatic refresh isn't working properly. Sorry for the inconvenience.


Submit a question
Thank you to everyone who participated and submitted questions this week. Unfortunately, I did not have nearly enough time to answer them all but you will be hearing from us. This is a great way to get feedback and hear from you in the District about what is going on and your thoughts and concerns. Until next time! (1:12 p.m.)
LL Watkins (1:03 p.m.): I understand that some states are giving tax credits and incentives to homeowners who use solar panels and even allow them to sell electricity back to the power system on sunny days. What can be done to make this a national program? I would think such a program would greatly benefit southern homeowners.
Bob Inglis: I agree completely. It’s called “net metering” and it makes sense. Power companies should be required to buy power from you if you’re generating it at your house. This could make solar panels much more of an attractive investment for the homeowner. Some power companies object saying that the technology isn’t there yet, but it is. They say that it isn’t safe, but it is. We just need to get on with it. Do we want to break this dependence on the Middle East or not? Do we want to do something about global warming or not? Let’s get with it.

Dave Dalby (12:58 p.m.): How can we get large use of efficient lighting to be used all around the USA to cut electrical power consumption on the road to energy independence?
Bob Inglis: Dave- This is a fabulous idea. As you and I have discussed, I understand that the use of florescent bulbs would cut our energy consumption by 7%. That’s huge. And it’s so simple. I’m typing in a room that is lighted by a florescent bulb, and I can’t tell the difference between it and an incandescent bulb (except that it takes about a second or two to come to full brightness). Over time, I’ll be able to tell a difference in my electricity bill! Now, how to get there? It makes sense to require government offices to switch to florescent bulbs. After all, the government owns those light fixtures and is paying the electricity bill. It makes sense to advertise to make consumers aware of the benefits of switching, but I don’t think I have the right as a member of congress to require you to use florescent bulbs. But I can encourage you to save yourself a little money by pointing out the benefits—to you and to our nation.

Richard Briscoe (12:55 p.m.): I am fearful of losing many of my rights to privacy and freedom that I have enjoyed all of my life. In light of the recent Attorney General's comments, what steps are you taking to help preserve those rights?
Bob Inglis: I'm not sure which comments of the Attorney General you are referencing, but let me take a stab at it this way. The Bill of Rights (first ten amendments to the Constitution) limits the power of government. The Constitution would not have been ratified without those limitations because at the foundation of the country we believed in liberty. Thankfully, we still believe in liberty, and it's why this country is the best place to live in the whole world. I plan to do my part to keep it that way. That's why I voted to subject the TSA (Terrorist Surveillance Program) to FISA Court jurisdiction. That's why I supported efforts to extend appropriate process protections to detainees.

Brian Murdoch, Greenville (12:42 p.m.): I heard that illegal aliens/immigrants that work in the US will now be able to collect social security benefits. Is this true?
Bob Inglis: I’m happy to report that this is not true. If someone is here illegally and they are on someone’s payroll, they are paying Social Security taxes but will never be able to draw benefits. In this way, illegal immigrants are actually helping Social Security. Of course, illegal immigrants cost us money, though, in education and healthcare. Of course, if they are paid in cash (as some home-grown Americans are), they are not paying into Social Security so the first two sentences above wouldn’t apply.

Joe Sanfilippo, Greenville (12:36 p.m.): Good afternoon. My name is Joe Sanfilippo, and I’m in Greenville, SC. Does the leadership of the Republican party believe/accept that an apparent abandonment of conservative principles led to the party’s defeat in the November elections? If so, are they re-committed to espousing conservative principles, forming a compelling agenda, and acting on it and effecting it when elected and given control of both houses of Congress?
Bob Inglis: Joe- Yes, the House Republican leadership and the rank-and-file members agree with you that we lost the House because we strayed into the neo-con mistake of big government conservativism. (Neo-cons believe that we should use a big government to accomplish conservative objectives. I think that “big government conservatism” is an oxymoron.) We need to return to our roots—Reagan principles of smaller, more efficient, more effective government. Our leadership and most rank-and-file members are committed to this rediscovery.

Joan Scripture, Greenville (12:29 p.m.): Health care: Have you done research concerning government controlled health care in England and Canada? From what I read, it is not as effective as our free system.
Bob Inglis: I hope we can come up with something better than government-run healthcare. The key is to have us patients feel part of the weight of our healthcare decisions. When I shop at the grocery store, I’m inclined to buy hamburger rather than steak and lobster because it’s my money that I’m spending. If it were an insurance company’s money (that came from my premium dollars that I wanted to “get back”) or the government’s money (in a government-run food system), I’d buy steak and lobster every day. Soon enough, there would be regulations limiting the number of days that I could buy steak and lobster, and we’d have a bureaucratic mess at the check out registers. So I need to feel the weight of my healthcare decisions but I also need a fund for preventive care. Those two objectives can be met through health savings accounts—my money in a tax-free account that can cover preventive care and smaller healthcare needs. I’d still need an insurance policy for the big things, and the challenge that I (and others who advocate this kind of system) must accept, it to figure out a way to extend health insurance coverage to everyone in America.

A. Lieberman, Greenville(12:21 p.m.): This concerns the national debt. When the democrats were previously in power,republicans constantly harped about deficit spending. In 1994 the republicans gained control and deficit spending is still out of control. What can be done?
Bob Inglis: We’ve got to take action on the deficit and on paying down the national debt. We Republicans lost the House because we failed to take action. In fact, we were deluded by the neo-con mistake of big government conservatism. We enacted No Child Left Behind. We created Medicare Part D without a “means test.” We spent money like drunken sailors and proved that the only thing worse than a tax-and-spend liberal is a no-tax-and-keep-spending “conservative.” Now, the Democrats control the House and the Senate. They have pledged themselves to deficit reduction. I hope we can work cooperatively to balance the budget. After all, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, it’s our children and grandchildren who are going to bear the burden of our excessive spending.

Charles Stinnett (12:15 p.m.): The President’s last major energy bill was a windfall for the oil companies and did almost nothing to support alternative fuels. Now he says we need to wean ourselves of the dependence on oil. This waffling is a big part of the credibility problem for the Executive Branch. Ethanol and hydrogen are decades away from being practical alternatives for the country as a whole. Is Congress willing to impose mpg efficiency requirements on automobile and truck manufacturers and/or a punitive tax on owners for wasteful consumption? Where does Congress stand with regard to battery powered cars and hybrid models?
Bob Inglis: Charles - Actually, the president requested said that no subsidies were needed for oil when the price of oil was (then) $65 a barrel. Some oil folks in the House added some tax benefits for the oil companies to the energy bill of 2006. I voted against that bill as it went through the House the first time because I agreed with the President—that no tax subsidies were needed for oil. The bill went to the Senate and some tax incentives were added for hybrids and other alternative fuels. When it came back to the House, I voted for the bill because I think it’s a good idea to give incentives for alternative fuels and technologies. It is my hope that we will put pedal to the metal on more incentives for alternative fuels, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, ethanol (especially cellulosic ethanol) and, ultimately, hydrogen. By the way, hydrogen is closer than you think. I expect that we can be on the road to hydrogen within 10 years with a total fleet conversion within 25 years.

***Alright, it's Thursday and we're back up and running with Bob! Without further delay, here's Bob... (12:06 p.m.)
Important: Bob has run out of time due to votes. We will CONTINUE TOMORROW (Thursday, Feb. 1) from Noon to 1 p.m., so keep the questions coming! We are sorry about the schedule interruptions but look forward to everyone joining us again tomorrow. (1:23 p.m.)
Michael D. Massengill (1:19 p.m.): Regardless of the arguments pertaining to the wisdom of invading Iraq, we have done so. Now that we are there, we need to let the military make the decisions on how to proceed, not the politicians in Washington. We need to do everything possible to secure a safe, secure, pro-western government in Iraq. Talk of cutting off funding or even nonbinding resolutions will only serve to embolden our enemies. Please do all that you can to fight against those in Congress that seem more interested in the current direction of opinion polls, rather than the long term security of our nation.
Bob Inglis: Michael, I agree in part and disagree in part. I agree that we should not cut off funds--we learned from Vietnam that this would be a mistake. I disagree, though, that military personnel should decide our policy. The greatest gift the U.S. military gives to the country is subjection to civilian control. In this wonderful constitutional republic, the congress has a role to play in setting America's war policy.

Brian Siegel (1:14 p.m.): Iraq. What will an accomplished mission look like? How will we know when we're done??
Bob Inglis: Success in Iraq was achieved in phase 1 when we disposed of a national security threat. Then, in phase 2, we disrupted terrorist networks--and, thankfully, there have been no further attacks in America since September 11. Now, we're in phase 3, a civil war. Success may come when we get the iraqi leadership to make decisions about about fair distribution of oil profits and allowing former Baath Party members back into public sector jobs. I think we should put them on a timetable--not for withdrawal but for progress on these questions--with the implicit threat that failure to make progress will lead to our departure.

We can tell you that Bob is in great shape having to run back and forth to the Capitol over and over for votes. A new pair of shoes might be in order by the week's end? (1:11 p.m.)
Yes we admit...Bob is definitely a man of many many talents. Being in two places at once is something we haven't helped him master yet. (1:09 p.m.)
What a wonder technology is...Bob is reading and answering on the go! (1:04 p.m.)
Jack Johannes (12:58 p.m.): Is money the real reason Congress seems unable to deal with immigration? If no, what is the reason? If yes, is there a chance for any reform? It seems like it is like Social Security, the longer it takes to deal with, the worse the problem becomes?
Bob Inglis: Jack, It's not money that's stopping action on immigration; it's the challenge of balancing border control (which I strongly support along with employer verification of Social Security numbers) with keeping America a welcoming land of opportunity and hope (which I support). That balance hasn't been agreed upon yet so the House bill (which was border control and employer verification of Social Security numbers) wasn't reconciled with the Senate bill (which included a temporary worker program).

Everyone please hang tight once again, Bob had to run back to the Capitol for one more vote. He will be right back! (12:46 p.m.)
Shirley Balmer (12:42 p.m.): What do you propose to do to help stop global warming?
Bob Inglis: Shirley, Re-invent the car. That’s the bold (and short) answer. Near term we need to make higher fuel efficiency standards. Mid-term (5-10 years) we can develop cellulosic ethanol which will produce less CO2 as compared to petroleum. Long term we need to break through to hydrogen where the only emission from the car is water vapor. I think we can be on the road to hydrogen within 10 years.

Bob Lewis (12:38 p.m.): I hear alot about electric and hydrogen cars. However, these cars are dependent first upon fossil fuels to make electricity (water is split into hydrogen + oxygen with electricity). Therefore, carbon dioxide which may be causing global warming, is sent to the atmosphere. We need to be talking more about nuclear energy which does not produce carbon dioxide. What is happening in congress to promote nuclear energy?
Bob Inglis: Bob, You’re right. Most of the hydrogen being produced today comes from re-forming natural gas so there is still a CO2 issue. However, some estimate that there is a 60% reduction in CO2 that comes from reforming natural gas into hydrogen and then using it in a car as compared to burning petroleum in a car.

I hope that we can make progress on a next generation nuclear reactor that can get water to 900 degrees C so that it can be split more efficiently. Although there is still strong opposition to nuclear, a number of environmentalists are re-thinking the issue. Nuclear energy creates a waste challenge, but it’s essentially emission-free. If we’re concerned about climate change (and I am), it makes sense to use more nuclear power.

Alright, Bob just arrived and will be ready to go in a moment! (12:26 p.m.)
Also another note, please refresh your page every few minutes because our automatic refresh isn't working properly. Sorry for the inconvenienve. (12:19 p.m.)
Hello! We are in a temporrary delay. Bob will be here at approximately 12:25-30 to begin. He is voting in the Capitol and will arrive as soon as they are finished. Please stand by. Thanks you. (12:17 p.m.)
Submit a question