This is to the conservative men and women of our area. Please do get to the polls and vote for Mark Souder. I have worked with his staff for the past 14 years. This is the finest group of people you'll ever meet. They are very dedicated and professional and totally committed to serving all of us. We need to keep these folks working for us. You must be sure to vote. Souder is a good and honest man, and his staff is beyond reproach.

Wayne Bartlett

In one of Rep. Mark Souder's campaign ads, he touts his support for all forms of energy production including the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I am not against drilling in ANWR for ecological reasons; I'm against drilling in ANWR because estimates show that there is less than a 3 percent reserve of our oil needs, and it will take between 10 and 20 years for the actual production of oil from this reserve to hit the U.S. markets.

In that same time, we could spend our time, money and intellectual abilities in creating, producing and improving alternative energy resources that won't negatively impact the environment, namely global warming.

Unfortunately, I don't view Mr. Souder's opponent as much of a “liberal,” giving me little choice for whom to vote. But I also happen to remember Souder's insistence — including signing the “Promise to America Agreement” — that he wouldn't run for more than two terms. Now that he is running for his eighth term, I wonder if he can be truly trusted. I personally don't believe in term limits, but I do believe in living up to one's word.

Daniel L. Gebhart

In a recent column, the writer attacked the U.S. Congress and suggested that we bring all incumbents home. While I agree in part with his idea, it will not solve the problem. The real problem is that we have people who have been in Congress far too long, and they remain in Congress because they receive financial support from PACs and from the 34,000 special interest and lobbyist groups currently residing on K Street in Washington, D.C.

In an earlier column, I proposed a twofold solution to this problem. The first part of this solution is to downsize both houses of Congress. Today there are 435 members of the House of Representatives. With the communication technology that is available today, this number could easily be reduced to 225 members. This reduction doesn't even require a constitutional amendment. Congress set the 435 limit back in the early 1900s, and Congress can reduce it now if we, the people, exert enough pressure.

Downsizing the Senate presents a far more difficult problem because it requires a constitutional amendment. This amendment would reduce the size of the United States Senate to one senator per state for a total of 50 senators.

The reduction of the size of Congress would accomplish at least two things: First, it would allow a reduction of the 17,000 staffers and the 13,000 support people who now serve the Congress. Second, the reduction of Congress would allow for the introduction of a third political party, which could, at the very least, serve to keep the two major parties in line.

The second part of my solution is to introduce congressional term limits. Both houses of Congress would be limited to three 4-year terms. The introduction of term limits also requires a constitutional amendment, which could be done in conjunction with the Senate reduction amendment. The establishment of term limits would go a long way toward cleaning up the Congress.

Arnold Linnemeier