Editorial: Ducking the real issue in Congress

Monday, March 9, 1998 | 10:18 a.m.

PUERTO Ricans are a step closer to having their voices heard on statehood -- no thanks to Reps. John Ensign and Jim Gibbons, both Nevada Republicans.

Late on Wednesday, the House resuscitated efforts that could allow the commonwealth to some day be the 51st state. The vote in favor was a razor-thin margin of 209-208. The legislation, which now moves to the Senate, would give Puerto Ricans three choices in a referendum to be held before the end of the year: continued commonwealth status, statehood or independence. Congress would have to follow any vote for change by its own vote on a 10-year plan for transition to either independence or statehood.

But Nevada's two representatives opposed the legislation. Jay Cranford, a spokesman for Gibbons, said the main reason Gibbons voted against the measure was that he received hundreds of letters and postcards from his constituents urging opposition. In addition, Cranford contended that a large percentage of Puerto Ricans are poor and that they would burden existing entitlement programs. "Now is just not the right time," Cranford said.

Ensign said that in the case of Puerto Rico, it would be a one-way street with the United States getting very little benefit from statehood. Ensign added there was no need for the Puerto Ricans to vote, noting the last vote in 1993 to approve statehood failed. "There is not a clear consensus," Ensign said.

But these arguments against a vote of Puerto Ricans beg the question. The real issue that was before the House was whether the people of Puerto Rico should be allowed to voice their opinions as they have in the past. What were Nevada's representatives in the House afraid of?