Buying statehood.

'THERE are more lobbyists working on this bill than I've ever seen on anything," says Eric Pelletier, a counsel to the powerful House Rules Committee. "I get more calls from lobbyists on this bill than on anything else -- whether it's FDA reform or tax issues." He's talking about HR-856, the United States - Puerto Rico Political Status Act," which has become the subject of a fierce, mostly behind-the-scenes debate.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R., Alaska) and co-sponsored by 87 others, would have Puerto Ricans decide in a referendum whether they want the island to remain a commonwealth, become the 51st state, or declare independence. The vote could come as early as next year, the centenary of America's conquest of Puerto Rico in the Spanish - American War.

Its supporters have a lot of clout. Speaker Newt Gingrich rarely even votes on bills, but he is the lead co-sponsor for HR-856. At least two dozen firms are lobbying for it, and both Haley Barbour and Harold Ickes are working for it. Not to mention former Sen. Bennett Johnston (D., La.) and former Rep. Robert Garcia (D., N.Y.).

Much of this politicking is tax-funded. The governor of Puerto Rico has a $250-million fund to play with, and the legislature, dominated by the pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP), has given each department of the government money with which to lobby. How many of the departments push statehood? None of them, technically; all of them, practically.

The bill's core supporters all favor statehood. Indeed, anyone who is unsure about statehood but supports the bill hasn't read the bill carefully. The bill thoroughly rigs the process of "self-determination" in favor of statehood and against the other options.

If Puerto Ricans choose commonwealth status, as they have in all previous referenda, the bill requires another referendum at least once every ten years -- until they get it "right." Since pro-independence sentiment on the island is marginal (it got 4 per cent in 1993) and the other two options are running about even, the effect is clearly pro-statehood. (Independistas are concentrated in New York and Chicago, which is why they want to let non-islanders of Puerto Rican descent vote in any referendum.)

Chuck Cooper, a Reaganite lawyer working for the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party (PDP), says that the language of the bill "drips with bias against commonwealth status." As does the ballot language the bill stipulates. The ballot implies that under the current commonwealth status, Puerto Ricans' citizenship and constitutional rights exist at the sufferance of Congress. That's not true, but it will certainly frighten some voters.

Even independistas like Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) "are outraged at the unfairness of this bill" toward commonwealth status, according to an aide. Referring to another left-wing Democrat, he says, "It's as if [Nydia] Velazquez and Gutierrez had written the Contract with America and told Republicans to go out and defend it." Cooper vows to challenge the constitutionality of any vote held under the bill.

He has a handful of allies. Puerto Rico First, representing the Puerto Rican Business Roundtable, is lobbying against the bill and for commonwealth status. Republican consultant Charlie Black is working for the PDP. English First has made opposition to the bill a priority, and House Rules Committee chairman Gerry Solomon (R., N.Y.) scuttled it in the last Congress by insisting on an official-English amendment which supporters regarded as unacceptable. That got Solomon labeled "a Nazi" on the floor of the Puerto Rican House of Representatives by its Majority Leader.

The GOP platform has supported statehood since Eisenhower, largely because the PNP has historically been aligned with the Republicans. Republican presidential candidates -- Ford in '76, Reagan and Bush in '79, Dole in '95 -- pander to this faction to win early support in the primaries. "It has been a rather crude buy-off," says a source familiar with platform negotiations.

Now, Republicans are divided over whether the bill would help or hurt their party. On this issue, as on immigration and affirmative action, they are spooked by their declining share of the so-called "Hispanic vote."

In a recent 222-page memorandum to Republicans on how to re-tool their message, pollster Frank Luntz urged them to support Puerto Rican self-determination as a way to appeal to all Hispanics. His polling question asked, "How important is it that your Member of Congress gives Puerto Ricans the right to vote up or down on statehood?" But Puerto Ricans already have that right; they have held several referenda without congressional prompting. And Luntz's question is hardly a fair description of the bill before Congress. When the National Latino Political Survey ran a poll on the substantive question, it found that most Americans of Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican descent preferred commonwealth status. "Your average Mexican-American couldn't care less whether Puerto Rico is a state," argues Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity. It subsequently emerged that Puerto Rico's governor, Pedro Rossello, is a client of Luntz's.

Behind the scenes, Sen. Paul Coverdell (R., Ga.) has been urging Republicans to court Hispanics more aggressively but thinks the bill is the wrong way to do it. He may filibuster the bill if necessary. Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.), head of the National Republican Campaign Committee, worries that a Puerto Rican state would send seven liberal Democrats to Congress. That is presumably why Dick Gephardt was the first signatory to a letter demanding consideration of the bill this month. Rep. Young and Rep. Dan Burton (R., Ind.), however, have taken every opportunity to say that Republicans would actually be competitive.

The fallback position of Republican statehood-boosters, to quote a recent anonymous fax, is that "Even If Puerto Ricans Don't Yet Identify With The Republican Party, They Support Conservative Values and Public Policy." They support school choice and tax cuts.

THE confidence of these Republicans in their ideas is refreshing, but perhaps exaggerated given that, in 1996, 2.6 times as many Puerto Ricans participated in the uncontested Democratic presidential primary as in the Republican one. As Rep. Gutierrez's aide says, "Puerto Rico would definitely be a Democratic state. No doubt about it, no doubt whatsoever. . . . Reagan would have lost his election in Puerto Rico. Clinton would have beaten Dole 80 - 20 in Puerto Rico."

If Frank Luntz is right that any show of Republican opposition to statehood will be interpreted as "anti-Hispanic," party leaders have a bigger problem than they realize. For it is inevitable that, as the public pays more attention to the issue, substantial Republican opposition to statehood will materialize, whether before the bill passes or when Congress considers a transition plan.

Rep. Young says the result of the referendum would not be binding on Congress. If a majority of Puerto Ricans ever votes for statehood, the President will have to draw up a transition plan within 180 days. Congress will then have to consider that plan under an expedited procedure, with no filibusters and limited amendments. That plan could have the effect of "incorporating" Puerto Rico, i.e., making a legally binding promise of statehood.

But what if Congress were to reject statehood after Puerto Ricans have voted for it? Surely, no party in this dispute wants to breed such unnecessary ill-will. Republicans may yet rue the day they raised this issue.

To date, the national interest has taken third place to moneyed interests and partisan interests in this debate. As a result, the United States is about to get a belated lesson on the costs of empire.