By KEITH LOGGINS

The gloves are off in the debate over statehood for Puerto Rico, a US territory in the Caribbean. This debate has been going on for 100 years and will likely go on for a few more years if the Senate kills the bill the House passed 209-208.

Loyal Puerto Ricans and loyal Americans divide on this issue because they see the data in different ways. In 1898, the Spanish-American war ended and the Treaty of Paris turned over Puerto Rico to the US. We paid Spain $20 million and have enjoyed keeping this 100 x 35 mile island afloat for 100 years.

In a 1993 plebiscite the islanders, with a population of 3.6 to 3.8 million, voted 48.6 to 46.3 percent to stay a commonwealth. Only 4.4 percent wished to be an independent nation.

Residents of a commonwealth hold US. citizenship, receive welfare, and can be drafted to fight in US. wars. They pay no income tax, have no voting representation in Congress and

cannot vote for President.

The debate raises the question, would Puerto Rico be better off as a state? We should also consider whether the U.S. would be better off.

Some 75 percent of Puerto Ricans do not speak English. Would the US start a massive educational boondoggle to force English on them, or make Puerto Rico an official Spanish language state? When a President gives a State of the Union speech, will a translator stand nearby?

There is hypocrisy from statehood advocates on the issue of sovereignty. In PR, they wave the flag and call PR the "fatherland," i.e., a nation. But before Congress they deny the nation tag and compare themselves to Hawaii, Alaska, and even Texas.

Carlos Romero Barcelo, one of the leaders calling for statehood admits PR will pay $4.5 billion in taxes and only get $3 billion in additional benefits. As in the US, the poor and the middle class will bear the brunt of that inequity. PR enjoys tax breaks for companies that produce there. If statehood comes, some fear the loss of that tax break will cause companies to leave creating more unemployment.

Statehood backers note that US unemployment is below five percent while PR's is 16 percent; US per capita income is $25,850 and PR's $7,050. The implication is the US economy will boost PR's. But PR is already a territory of the US and statehood backers don't explain how losing the income tax exemption will be overcome.

The statehood proponents' biggest argument is the island would have equal footing with the other 50 states. That is a dubious notion. Does California have equal footing with Mississippi? Does Texas have equal footing with West Virginia?" If that is their best argument, it is badly wanting.

Let us look at Hawaii which achieved statehood back in 1959.

1. While the per capita income rose in Hawaii, natives did not share in that wealth.

2. Native Hawaiians have the highest rates of poverty and the lowest levels of education on the islands.

3. As the islands became privatized by government, the natives were displaced and had to live in de facto segregation.

4. There is now a push in Hawaii to become a sovereign nation after 40

years of statehood.

The admission of Puerto Rico as a state would cripple PR and create cultural tensions in the US comparable to those Canada is suffering.

Congressional Republicans should find some other way to attract Hispanic votes.