Letters

(Regarding op-ed, “Don’t deny healthcare to children of parents in U.S. illegally,” Nov. 10.) Janet Murguia and the National Council of La Raza have never let truth stand in the way of their relentless effort to reward illegal immigration. As she and her co-author Ralph Neas well know, illegal aliens, regardless of age, have never been denied “life-saving treatment” or preventive vaccinations, and that would not change under any proposed healthcare overhaul.

Legislation is moving through the House that would provide a congressionally sanctioned process for consulting Puerto Ricans regarding their preferences as to the territory’s political status. In a recent letter to the editor (“Puerto Rico’s statehood party plots sham vote via H.R. 2499,” Nov. 6), a critic from the islands’ minority, commonwealth party made misleading claims about what this bill would and wouldn’t do.

The article on President Barack Obama’s defense cuts (“Obama signs defense bill, attacks waste,” Oct. 28), portraying Obama as a waste-cutting president, was simply too much for this retired naval officer.

As healthcare providers, the primary mission of physicians and other medical professionals is the well-being and safety of patients. The American public puts its trust in us, and its government, to assure that the medicines we provide are safe, well tested, and effective.

In his article “Business and drug groups blast bill; doctors are uneasy” (Oct. 30), Jeffrey Young consults only a small sampling of business groups and fails to provide readers with a complete and balanced picture of how small businesses feel about the newly introduced House bill. In short, not all business groups are in opposition.

(Regarding op-ed, “Bill would protect chemical plants,” by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., in “Special Report: Homeland Security,” Oct. 28.) We agree with Rep. Thompson that now is time to pass a permanent chemical security law that continues to build on the collaborative relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and our industry to protect against terrorism.

However, DHS’s mandate is to secure the assets at these facilities, not substitute or replace them, as the congressman suggests. If proponents for government-mandated product substitution get their way, a shortage or elimination of common products, like ibuprofen, could become reality.

Switching to alternative substances would also increase our reliance on foreign-made drugs, as American companies become barred from manufacturing pharmaceutical ingredients that customers will still demand.  Such a result would actually make the U.S. much less safe and secure, and cost American jobs. Suddenly, this legislation becomes a consumer and job safety issue as well.

The congressman does not mention the fact that DHS has repeatedly stated that there is no known credible threat against chemical plants. Additionally, to date, no federal security or intelligence agency publicly shares his view that substitution is the silver bullet to protecting chemical plants against terrorism. Further, experts in process safety have repeatedly testified in Congress against mandating inherently safer technology, mostly because of its complexity and the inability to measure it.

We urge Congress to put aside partisan differences and simply extend the existing Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which has already driven some facilities to make important process changes. The unintended consequences of mandating product substitution are simply too risky for the U.S. to accept today.

From Bill Allmond, vice president, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, Washington

I read with great interest the Oct. 20 letter “Exclusive pacts on handsets pose big threat to consumers” by Steve K. Berry of the Rural Cellular Association. Frankly, Mr. Berry’s letter reflects a basic misunderstanding about how competitive markets work.

The Hill’s Oct. 20 article, “Gutierrez letter shows efforts to save a bank,” is misleading and inaccurate. My staff worked closely with you to explain my entirely appropriate actions, and I’m sorry you still got the story so wrong.

America’s wireless consumers do deserve answers about Google Voice, and Web-based calling services may bear looking into (article, “Rural carrier asks for broader FCC inquiry,” Oct. 13). But consumers face a much greater threat in the form of exclusive handset arrangements, such as the deal between Apple and AT&T.

(Regarding article “Obama proposes $250 for retirees,” Oct. 14.) Social Security beneficiaries spend each dollar that they receive as they may, which creates economic stimulus. And in bad times, $250 is certainly significant to someone who relies on these benefits.