Letter to the Editor regarding Puerto Rico status

Letter to the Editor regarding Puerto Rico status The following is a letter from Congressman Luis Fortuño from Puerto Rico in reply to an April 30 editorial in the Washington Times.

May 1, 2006

Letters to the Editor The Washington Times

3600 New York, Ave., NE

Washington, DC 20002

Sent via email: letters@washingtontimes.com

White House Got it Right on Puerto Rico Status The Washington Times editorial of April 30 on the recent Bush Administrationpolicy report to Congress about the political status of Puerto Rico isfraught with misinformation.

First, you question support of statehood by a Republican administration. In 2000 and 2004, the GOP platforms strongly supported statehood, and calledfor a referendum in which the current status, statehood and separatenationhood are defined in legally valid terms accepted by Congress.

However, the Report by the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status did not simply call for a vote between those three options. Rather, the White House report recommends a very neutral ballot choice between keepingthe current status and seeking a new status. Under this approach, therewould never be a vote on statehood or separate sovereign nationhood unless a majority voted to seek an end to the current status, so your allegation theWhite House seeks to “jettison” the current status is simply wrong.

Because the Administration report concludes that governing federal lawdefines Puerto Rico as a territory, the pro-commonwealth leaders of PopularDemocratic Party (PDP) have hired Republican lobbyists to advance theirtheory that Puerto Rico became a nation when Congress authorized adoption ofa local constitution in 1950. Thus, their proposal is not to continue the current status at all, but to advance “Enhanced Commonwealth”. That status formula includes local power to decide which federal laws apply to Puerto Rico, the ability to conduct aseparate foreign policy starting with international trade agreements, whilekeeping U.S. citizenship, permanent union and free trade with the United States, federal block grants, and most other benefits of statehood, but none of it's responsibilities.

The White House report correctly concludes that status model is precluded legally and politically unrealistic. Your assertion that voters approved the current status four times inaccurately includes the 1952 vote to approve the local constitution as avote for “Commonwealth”. That was not a political status vote, since itdid not change Puerto Rico’s status, and statehood, independence or“Commonwealth” were not on the ballot. In three locally sponsored plebiscites, using disputed and highly controversial ballot definitions of commonwealth devised by the local political parties, the actual results were mixed. In 1967 the current status won by over 60% of the vote. In 1993 the current status got 48%,statehood 46%. In 1998, over 46% voted for statehood, but the current status, labeled“Commonwealth”, was accurately defined as territorial, and got less than 1%.“None of the Above” received just over 50% voter approval. Clearly, the status of Puerto Rico is not resolved, so your accusation the White House recommendations for status resolution surrender ground gained in the Cold War against Castro and other critics of U.S. policy is simply absurd.

President Reagan knew a thing or two about the Cold War, and he actively supported statehood as the best model for an American success storyin Puerto Rico. Ronald Reagan’s words were, “As a ‘commonwealth’ Puerto Rico is neither astate nor independent, and thereby has a historically unnatural status…To show the world that the American idea can work in Puerto Rico is to show that our idea can work everywhere.” Finally, as a Republican in Congress representing 4 million U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, a population close to that of Kentucky and Arizona, I find amusing your assertion that as a state Puerto Rico would send only Democrats to Congress. What does not amuse me is that Americans from Puerto Rico are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq at a per capita rate that ranks well within the top 5 among the 50 states, yet their Congressman has no vote, and they do not vote for their Commander-in-Chief. I have introduced a bill, that currently has a 105 co-sponsors, to implement the recommendations of the White House report. By the time final legislation is passed there will be a record before Congress on the status issue that will lead to conclusions very different than those reached in your editorial.

Sincerely,

Luis Fortuño

Member of Congress